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

[FireLance]

I am not certain that "making certain options less attractive compared to the others" = effectively limiting choice. This assumes some form of superior knowledge on the part of the DM a priori of what the players will find attractive. IME, players are far more surprising than that.

It could be something as simple as: the players have the choice of traveling from point A to point B by a road that winds through the mountains, or by river. In autumn, storms make travelling by river more dangerous. In winter, blizzards and avalanches make the mountain road more dangerous. Although the DM does not require the PCs to make this journey, or to do so at any specific time, if they decide to do so during the autumn or the winter, the way the world has been set up makes one choice less attractive compared to the other.

 

[ChaosShard]

I'll disagree. I mean, look at the word - as if I cannot get on the morning train to work if I am willing, or don't know I'm getting on the train? I can always choose to get on the train, and take the ride.

A railroaded plot is one that has no stops or turns that the DM does not allow. Whether the players want to be on the railroad is a separate issue. Many folks will not mind the railroad, if it is going somewhere they want to go.

One of my friends summed it up in a way that really works for me. He said that "The DM must preserve the illusion of free will, while maintaining the story's progress." This came out of a long discussion of weather characters or story are more important (his vote was for story, but that's a subject for another time )

Back on topic, however, his argument is that the DM being omnipotent, save for the actions of the players, must convince the characters to follow his plot while letting them feel that they can do anything. He usually does this through backstory and carefully crafted plothooks. This leaves the players with motivation and options, leaving them to decide how they will handle a given situation within the confines of his story.

To me, that's less about railroading and more about a story-driven campaign (he only runs 4-5 session games, max, so this works well, especially in L5R, but I digress )

To me, railroading is the bad kind of DM'ing, where players are being told "No, I don't think your character would do that" several times in one night because the characters have no motivation to follow the DM's plot and try to do something that interests them.

 

[Umbran]

Then all plots are railroads. [/discussion]

That's the problem. Railroading CAN'T just mean "you can't do anything without the DM's permission," because by definition, you can't.

The term "railroading" has to mean something more.

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.

 

[Leif]

Having been railroaded at least my fair share of times in the past, let me offer my take on WHY gamemasters may sometimes feel that railraoding is necessary: Simply this -- TOTAL LACK OF ADEQUATE PREPARATION. If the GM only has detailed information about one area of his world, then guess where you are going to go. Likewise, if the GM has detailed adventure plans for what is going to happen after the players do X, and no alternatives, then it is assured that the players will 'choose' to do X.

I think that it's faily safe to say that the richer the detail of the environment, the less railroading will be thought necessary or desirable. In this time of proliferation of commercially-available gameworlds, there is really no excuse for it.

 

[Hussar]

Having been railroaded at least my fair share of times in the past, let me offer my take on WHY gamemasters may sometimes feel that railraoding is necessary: Simply this -- TOTAL LACK OF ADEQUATE PREPARATION. If the GM only has detailed information about one area of his world, then guess where you are going to go. Likewise, if the GM has detailed adventure plans for what is going to happen after the players do X, and no alternatives, then it is assured that the players will 'choose' to do X.

I think that it's faily safe to say that the richer the detail of the environment, the less railroading will be thought necessary or desirable. In this time of proliferation of commercially-available gameworlds, there is really no excuse for it.

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.

Is a sandbox game of a shipwreck on an island a railroad? After all, you can't leave the island.

Heck, is a surprise attack on the PC's a railroad?

I don't think so. But, by some definitions, I suppose it is.

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.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

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.

You can't railroad a willing person in my opinion.

Railroading is the deliberate act of limiting or eliminating choices and the players knowing that their choices are being curtailed or that their choices, whatever they are, lead to the same point.
...
Outcome 5: The party finds out about the dragon in the hills and instead, head for the forest, only to find that the forest is on fire. They decide to back track, only to find that a entire horde of orcs is rampaging through the areas. They make for another location, to find that the weather or other conditions preclude them from going that way. One by one, all options are closed down do that the only option remaining is heading for the hills and the dragon. This is the classical railway. Party cannot exercise any choices because all options are shut down and the only choice is the what the DM wants.

In short, a railway is when the party is aware of something they want to avoid or not deal with at the moment and through lack of choices or manipulation of choice outcomes, all paths lead back to the very thing the party has made a choice to avoid.

I think Dell put it way better than I did. Since it's been lost in the shuffle, I'm quoting it now to bring it back up into the discussion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It could be something as simple as: the players have the choice of traveling from point A to point B by a road that winds through the mountains, or by river. In autumn, storms make travelling by river more dangerous. In winter, blizzards and avalanches make the mountain road more dangerous. Although the DM does not require the PCs to make this journey, or to do so at any specific time, if they decide to do so during the autumn or the winter, the way the world has been set up makes one choice less attractive compared to the other.

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.

Having been railroaded at least my fair share of times in the past, let me offer my take on WHY gamemasters may sometimes feel that railraoding is necessary: Simply this -- TOTAL LACK OF ADEQUATE PREPARATION. If the GM only has detailed information about one area of his world, then guess where you are going to go.

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

 

[Raven Crowking]

To me, railroading isn't even forcing the players down one particular path.

This pretty well sums up the problem.




RC

 

[Cadfan]

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.

You can be railroaded by a DM who's ad libbing the adventure, I assure you.

Having been railroaded at least my fair share of times in the past, let me offer my take on WHY gamemasters may sometimes feel that railraoding is necessary: Simply this -- TOTAL LACK OF ADEQUATE PREPARATION. If the GM only has detailed information about one area of his world, then guess where you are going to go. Likewise, if the GM has detailed adventure plans for what is going to happen after the players do X, and no alternatives, then it is assured that the players will 'choose' to do X.

I think that it's faily safe to say that the richer the detail of the environment, the less railroading will be thought necessary or desirable. In this time of proliferation of commercially-available gameworlds, there is really no excuse for it.

One of the easiest ways to railroad and forgive yourself for it is to build it right into the setting. Give the players infinite choices, but assure that a fair percentage of them don't work for "objective" reasons. Have events outside of the player's control steamroll forwards if they do not "voluntarily" engage with them, punishing them for failing to follow the plotline.

Of course, this is also a great way to run a really engaging, believable setting. Which gets back to my original point, you can't railroad the willing or the unaware.

 

[Umbran]

Simply this -- TOTAL LACK OF ADEQUATE PREPARATION.

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.