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

[Janx]

I am not quite what you are saying here, but it sounds like you are saying that planning a scenario to take into player choice is equivalent to simply pulling stuff out of your portable hole. If so, I disagree entirely and completely.

Portable Hole.

Nice choice of words.

--------------------
back on topic

I don't analyze adventures and modules. While I agree there are traits in adventures that can lead to railroading, railroading happens during game time, not planning time. And yes, there are ways of planning the adventure that can encourage a DM to railroad, but ultimately, it's the DM running it that's doing the railroading (by not adjusting and adapting), not the adventure text.

This why, the phrase "I'll know it when I see it" is apt. You'll see it in game play.

When the GM runs events as, "the party will be captured and brought to such and such", the GM is railroading. Even if the adventure has that written, it's the GM who should have adapted when the players found a way to prevent being captured.

When the GM runs a scene as "the guard will only open the door whent he party presents the real medallion", and he blocks any other viable and reasonable solution. Such as attacking the guard, charming the guard, forging a fake, freezing time, diplomacy/bluff/disguise, etc."

Those are railroading mistakes that happen at the game table. Because railroading happens at the game table.

When you buy an adventure, it comes with some plot hooks to integrate the party into the quest. It might come with a timeline of encounters that happen. These are all suggestions, based on a "probable" path a good party will go through. A good GM knows this, and as the party navigates the world, he adjusts encounters, delaying them, removing them, altering them based on what the party did in the last encounter, and what direction they chose to go. In each case, the mark of a good GM is that they change the future encounters based on the outcome of the past encounters, such that whatever happens next is rational, believable, and fair.

 

[Arnwyn]

So, in your view, is there an objective definition of "railroading" (and if so, what is it?) or is "railroading" entirely subjective and dependent on whether the players mind in the first place?

Good question.

IMO, there is indeed an objective definition of railroading - but as to whether it's always a bad thing is subjective. (So, if the players don't mind, then it could be railroading, but who cares if it is?)

(Now getting agreement as to what the objective definition of "railroading" is is quite another thing - I've seen a lot of really really goofy definitions of it here at ENWorld...)

 

[pawsplay]

Or the DM will make whatever option the players choose into his option A. All of the N options are illusory from the begining; all roads lead to Rome.


RC

Even that is only a railroad if the DM insists on a particular outcome, irrespective of PC actions that are unexpected and logically lead to a different outcome.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Even that is only a railroad if the DM insists on a particular outcome, irrespective of PC actions that are unexpected and logically lead to a different outcome.

There we differ.


RC

 

[Beginning of the End]

So, in your view, is there an objective definition of "railroading" (and if so, what is it?) or is "railroading" entirely subjective and dependent on whether the players mind in the first place?

Railroading happens when the GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure.

There are two main methods of achieving railroading:

(1) Enforcing Failure. ("I use my spell to drill through the wall [that I'm not supposed to get through]." "It doesn't work [because you're not supposed to get through it].")

(2) False Choice. ("I go left." "You enter the Vampire's Lair." [REWIND] "I go right." "You enter the Vampire's Lair.")

The key here is the motive. If the PCs try to negotiate a peace treaty with Godzilla or beat through an adamantium door with a fluffy pillow, the fact that they have no chance of success is not railroading. That's just the nature of the scenario.

More generally, railroading can be done elegantly (in which case the players may not be aware that they're being railroaded) or it can be done crudely (in which case the GM's machinations are clear).

But whether it's done elegantly or crudely, it still has a very real and meaningful impact on the game. Whether that impact is positive or negative will depend on (a) what people want and (b) whether the railroad is giving it to them. (And, in many cases, the process of railroading itself is antithetical to "what people want".)

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.

For example, imagine the scenario where you give the Evil Villain a few extra hit points so that he manages to escape instead of being taken out by the elf's arrow.

Sure, the PCs may never realize that they've been railroaded. But the nature of the game has been fundamentally changed by the railroad.

As a GM, I don't railroad because I'm specifically gaming to see what happens when the PCs interact with the scenario I've designed. If I'm only interested in my pre-conceived plot, then why don't I just write a story? (YMMV.)

I hear a lot of GM's justify their railroading by saying things like, "I'm just trying to avoid an anti-climax." But after years of doing it the other way, I have yet to see a single player get upset when they "prematurely" take out the bad guy. In fact, those are usually the stories that get remembered and recounted for years after the game has been played.

Be open to the idea of making Return of the Jedi into the story of Luke Skywalker coming to grips with the fact that Darth Vader wasn't lying... he killed his own father in Cloud City when (in a moment of pain and anger) he burned a Dark Side point, got a lucky roll, and yanked Vader's lightsaber out of his hand. That story can be every bit as cool as that plan you had about Luke and Vader dueling in front of the Emperor.

But whether you're open to that idea or not, railroading takes those possibilities off the table -- whether the players are aware of it or not.

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.

I think this may be a valuable distinction, as well: Having a social contract ("players are expected to take the adventure hook') or campaign structure ("you're spies and get assigned a new mission each week") in which there is no choice of scenario is railroading.

But once you've gotten past that "mandatory buy-in", such scenarios can be run in a completely non-railroaded fashion.

OTOH, there's nothing inherent to a military campaign or a spy campaign that requires it to be a railroad. Assuming, of course, that disobeying orders or going rogue is an option. (And, honestly, disobeying orders isn't even all that genre-busting. Look at the last couple James Bond films or vast swaths of 24, for example.)

This goes right to the thread title in many ways: If the players sign up for a military campaign, is the fact that they're willingly taking orders railroading? In my opinion, no. The decision to follow orders is a meaningful choice, even if the answer is almost certainly going to be "yes" every single time.

Outcome 4: The character find out about the dragon in the hills and head for the forest, only to run into a dragon living the the forest. The DM says it is a different dragon but the party didn't want to mess with any dragons, so it's a railroad. Again, the party exercised a choice but still got the DM's dragon encounter anyhow.

I would add the slight proviso that it's only a railroad if the DM is actually moving the encounter. If there really WAS a different dragon there, then it's not a railroad.

Seriously, does anyone actually let their players do whatever they want. If they ignore all the hooks you throw at them and decide they are going to become farmers, sell all their weapons, and settle down...

Sure. Although if that specific scenario were to occur I'd probably stop the game for a bit for a discussion in which I would try to figure out (a) why they want to play farmers and (b) whether or not I have any interest in running a campaign like that.

In practice, of course, that doesn't actually happen. Even before play begins, the group has a shared understanding of what they want the game to look like. Even if you don't have any discussion beyond, "What game do you want to play?" That usually provides a lot of clues about what type of game they're looking to play.

And once you're actually playing, it doesn't take a super-genius to get a pretty good feel for what types of things the characters are interested in and what they're going to be doing. (And making a habit of asking, "What are you guys planning to do next week?" is also very helpful in anticipating action.)

Players aren't random number generators. Their output is more often coherent than not.

you are telling me that you don't have any of those hooks come to them again or affect them at all?

Well, no. But making it so that their choices have consequences isn't railroading -- it is, in fact, the exact opposite of railroading.

Not when considering whether or not something is railroading. If they don't care, then the tracks may be invisible. If they agreed, then the tracks might even be desirable ("Hey guys! Let's play through the Age of Worms AP!"). The tracks are still there. IMHO, it is the tracks, not how you feel about them, that define the railroad.

I think a railroad only truly happens in play, not in design. However, there are certainly designs which are extremely likely to encourage/require railroading.

For example, if I design a scenario that requires choice A, then choice B, and then choice C in order to be usable then it's quite likely the scenario will require railroading in actual play. But if the players come in and make choice A, then choice B, and then choice C without ever being forced to make any of those choices, then no railroading has taken place: Their choices were never negated.

EDIT: Actually, I take that back. I'm remembering some White Wolf modules that literally say, "More bad guys keep coming until the PCs stop trying to do that." That's railroad by design. Although, even then, if the PCs never try the "forbidden" action, the railroad never actually happens.

For the record, this conversation almost exactly mirrors law school discussions about the meaning of "judicial activism," another term with a basic meaning (an exercise in judicial discretion...) coupled with a heavy pejorative connotation (...that I don't like).

I don't think "railroad" has a universally negative connotation. I think some people universally dislike railroads, but the practice has been routinely defended in every online forum I've ever participated in. There have also been plenty of print products explicitly defending the practice.

I think a better example would be the term "liberal". There are certainly plenty of people who use it with a heavily pejorative connotation, but that doesn't mean the term should be abandoned.

 

[Noumenon]

As a GM, I don't railroad because I'm specifically gaming to see what happens when the PCs interact with the scenario I've designed. If I'm only interested in my pre-conceived plot, then why don't I just write a story? (YMMV.)

For some reason I can't get the XP box to pop up today, but I really liked this part. Good post.

 

[howandwhy99]

From the thread title alone this topic sounds like a difference in definition. Can you railroad the willing? Of course. Should that be called railroading?

That's the important question. I say yes. I suppose gamers who love to be railroaded would prefer another term. And a hobby community that supported their feelings.

Personally, I dont' really see it going away. But by the way terms are intentionally redefined nowadays in our hobby, perhaps it will work out? Just look at powergaming and min/maxing. They've practically switched positions on the good/bad scale because of attempts to redefine them and gaming.

 

[Ariosto]

The negative connotation of "railroad" comes from the historical context. It simply describes something quite other than what the game of D&D was meant to be. Indeed, if taken far enough it produces something that does not match the commonly received meaning of the term "game" -- except in such colloquial expressions as "Don't play games with me!"

The "role-playing game" concept has taken off in different directions in the past 35 years. Some of those might meaningfully be distinguished with other terms (e.g., "interactive storytelling"), just as D&D-like games came to be known as something other than "fantasy war-gaming."

Given the free-wheeling nature of D&D, its appeal to remarkably creative people and its encouragement of modification to taste, it seems natural that those later developments should influence some players who nonetheless are reluctant so to draw a line between their games and D&D.

That one showing up to play Dungeons & Dragons should be willing to enter the dungeons (and perhaps risk facing dragons) was once just a matter of common sense. The DM was not to prevent someone from "playing" a homebody farmer -- but that was not really playing the game, so one could hardly expect to get much more catered to than if one tried the same routine in, say, Tractics.

The dungeons as described in Vol. 3 neatly summed up what D&D was about. They resembled only superficially the essentially linear affairs of which I saw too much in the 3E era (and that could only mislead those with no other frame of reference).

Did walls of stone limit options? Of course they did, barring appropriate magics. Nonetheless, the number of possible paths through even a single level confounded computation -- and points of egress (voluntary and involuntary) to other levels were plentiful. "Clear the level, defeat the boss, move on to the next level" was not the idea. Nor was any preordained series of encounters. The dungeons were not a "plot line" but an environment for the players to explore as they would.

The wilderness was likewise, only with wide open terrain as opposed to subterranean passages.

Tournament scenarios tended (for practical reasons peculiar to the demands of that mode of play) to be much more constrained. The "Slave Lords" modules clearly reflected their origin, and may have occasioned my first encounter with the "railroad" jargon (although a novice DM's handling of the Giants modules may have introduced it earlier).

"Playing a module" was fine as an occasional thing, perhaps as a quick jumping-off point for a new group, but not the meat and potatoes of a proper campaign. By the end of the 1980s, though, that seemed widely to have been turned upside down.

Even if players have the illusion of free choice, its lack is what makes a "railroad." A "football" shape that looks in the middle like a branching tree but inevitably converges on a single outcome is a "railroad."

I've seen plenty of frivolous rhetoric levied to confuse the issue. The term was not cooked up by abstract theorists. It arose (like "Monty Haul" and other D&D jargon) as a handy referent to a phenomenon widely familiar from experience.

Again, the negative connotation goes back to a common understanding of what D&D was "about." A tournament scenario was by no means "bad" as a tournament scenario for being a railroad. A series of similar scenarios played as one might play a succession of set-piece battles in a war-game was not "bad" for what it was. However, what it was not was the full implementation of D&D meant by the term "campaign."

Necessity seems to have been the mother of invention of the term "sandbox" to distinguish that meaning from bowdlerized usage. I don't expect historical-war-game "grognards" so to react to co-option of their time-honored self-descriptor by people who play (in context) old games about elves stealing gold from goblins!

At some point, it may be meet for those embracing newer game forms to accept that traditional RPGers may likewise not be amenable to adopting some redefinitions of terms. Just as Britons and Americans are "divided by a common language" yet bound by a common heritage, perhaps we can agree to disagree and be the richer for diversity.

 

[Hussar]

Railroading: GM actions that negate meaningful choices simply because of what was chosen.

Can I get a bit of clarification here?

Chosen by whom? Choices that are negated by the player or choices that are negated by the DM? I think I agree with you, but, I'm just not 100% clear what you mean here.

I think this may be a valuable distinction, as well: Having a social contract ("players are expected to take the adventure hook') or campaign structure ("you're spies and get assigned a new mission each week") in which there is no choice of scenario is railroading.

But once you've gotten past that "mandatory buy-in", such scenarios can be run in a completely non-railroaded fashion.

OTOH, there's nothing inherent to a military campaign or a spy campaign that requires it to be a railroad. Assuming, of course, that disobeying orders or going rogue is an option. (And, honestly, disobeying orders isn't even all that genre-busting. Look at the last couple James Bond films or vast swaths of 24, for example.)

This goes right to the thread title in many ways: If the players sign up for a military campaign, is the fact that they're willingly taking orders railroading? In my opinion, no. The decision to follow orders is a meaningful choice, even if the answer is almost certainly going to be "yes" every single time.

This is obviously going to vary by campaign. In a spy campaign, disobeying orders, while still achieving the goal may be all well and good. Although, if you were writing a James Bond adventure that has disobeying as an option, you'd likely start the adventure after the 00's have gone rogue. Trying to design an adventure while taking that into account may be beyond the scope of what you have time to deal with while crafting the adventure.

But, in a military campaign, things change. In wartime, disobeying orders doesn't get you a slap on the wrist, it takes you out of the game. It may very well get you killed by your own side, even if you do succeed. At the very least, you should be going to prison.

Again, this depends on the campaign. In a, say, WWII campaign where you are part of an infantry platoon storming Normandy Beach, disobeying orders might be an option, I suppose, but, by and large, it's going to get you shot by your superiors. Or, take it back and you are playing in a Napoleonic campaign, where officers were within their rights to execute soldiers on the spot (if I'm screwing up my history, my bad - but there are times and places where this IS true. The modern Turkish army for example), then you really don't have a choice about disobeying.

And, yes, it's all about buy in to the campaign. But, if you have bought into things, are you then railroaded by those constraints? If I'm playing Star Frontiers, a standard camaign makes me a Star Law Ranger. Is that railroading? In Battletech, you are expected to play a Mechwarrior. Is agreeing to play that game railroading?

I don't think so.

When you get right down to it, agreeing to play any game is going to limit your choices. At what point does limitation of choices=railroad?

 

[Ariosto]

ALL PLOTS ARE RAILROADS!

I mean "plot" in the literary sense, changing the referee into Author and the players from those of a game to those who strut upon a stage -- not in the sense of the plans of NPC mice and men.

It seems to me really not hard to grasp, based on my experience of D&D in the 1970s and 1980s.

It blows my mind that the basic concept of D&D should (in such precincts as these) be probably even stranger than swimming in the ocean is to one who has never known anything but plains beneath the Big Sky.

EDIT: Basically, this seems to be getting "thought about" to an absurd degree. Instead of debating a spectral analysis of chocolate ice cream, my advice is to give it a taste. Then you might know the difference between it and carob-flavored soy milk by way of information processors in development long before photography!