Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 4742317" data-attributes="member: 55271">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".)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.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.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.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.Well, no. But making it so that their choices have consequences isn't railroading -- it is, in fact, the exact opposite of railroading.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification