Choices and railroads

[questing gm]

Just seeking a matter of opinion,

If a DM gives his players two choices in an adventure but hangs forseeable (whether meta-gamingly or in-character-ly) reward or bait between one of the choices that the DM knows the players would latch onto real quick (i.e, somehow influencing their decision-making with 'bribes'), is this accusable for railroading or adventure corruption ?

 

[Hussar]

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. The DM is giving the players the following two choices (as an example):

1. Down this path, there is the chance of winning a honking big bag o' swag if you can defeat the challenges.

2. Down this path, there are challenges.

It's not railroading, IMO, but, it is pretty close. Assuming, of course, that both choices are actually valid - ie. choice number 2 isn't certain death or merely redirects back to choice 1 - then the DM hasn't forced the players to make one or the other decision. He's simply given hints as to which one looks more appealing.

Really, that's not even unrealistic. There are many cases where you have two choices and one is more appealing than the other. Not that the more appealing choice is the better one, simply that one is more attractive.

No, I wouldn't say that this is rail roading.

*Disclaimer - It could be railroading depending on the specifics, but, with the information give, I would say not.*

 

[Gold Roger]

It isn't railroading, nor does it carry any of it's negative effects to the gameplay. So it's ok to do this.

However, this doesn't carry any of the positive effects of real choice either, so it's an insufficient substitution for real choices in an adventure.

Using both is ok.

 

[wmasters]

It really depends on what 'accusable of railroading or adventure corruption' means? And, indeed, on the bribe (the advisor to the king bribing you to support their nation rather than the civil uprising is fine).

Accusable? Yes, of course it is. So is a straight road that links one town to another (or, indeed a railroad). Personally I don't think railroading is always a problem. I'm quite happy to be told that I can hear the roar of the dragon down one path and my first level character deciding to take the other.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by adventure corruption though. If you mean deviating from a written mod, then maybe it is, but then that's not always a bad thing. If it's a homebrew then I don't think a DM can corrupt an adventure.

To me it sounds like you don't like the way your DM has done this. Just speak to him/her about it. Players speaking up about something they don't agree with is important - it means a DM can cater for their players better, and learn to be a better DM.

 

[Nomad4life]

It’s hard to tell what you mean exactly with the information given, but I don’t think that making one option appear “more beneficial” over another option is the same as “railroading.” Sometimes, there is simply a “better” choice between two choices, and it is the responsibility of the DM to make this apparent. Even so, it is ultimately the players who make that decision, though it may not be a very interesting or tough decision-making process.

 

[Whisper72]

The real issue of railroading is when the players (or PC's) essentially have no real choice. So, it kinda depends upon the nature of both choices.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with one choice being somewhat 'preferent'. An example would be two choices where one leads to the continuation of the main plot and the other is clearly a tangent. Presumably, the DM may give hints that the side plot is very nice, the DM went through a lot of trouble to make it interesting for the PC's and somehow makes this known. The PC's may still choose to continue with the main plotline. Both choices are valid. Some hinting by the DM is no problem, but there should be no negative repercussions should the players decide to ignore the DM...

 

[Quasqueton]

Some people are much too quick to cry "railroad!" But railroading takes a heavy and intentional hand. Giving the PCs a choice, even if the options are obviously lopsided, is by definition not a railroad.

To me, railroading is when the DM *tells* you what you do (individually or as a group), or the DM *makes* something happen because he wants it (rather than as a natural result or consequence of the world).

For instance, taking the hotly debated OotS “railroad plot” from a couple months ago:

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=251

Roy said the OotS team would only go with Miko in chains.

Not railroad: Miko kicks the OotS team butts (fairly, by the rules) and puts them in chains and hauls them away. [This assumes that Miko was a legitimate character, not one the DM suddenly made 20th level at the moment.]

Railroad: The DM tells the Players that Miko kicks the OotS team butts (without bothering with the rules) and puts them in chains and hauls them away.

Quasqueton

 

[MonkeyDragon]

I consider railroading to be primarily two problems:

1) There is no choice, and not even an illusion of choice. The PCs are forced to follow the DM's story because there is nothing else to do, there's an uber-NPC making them do it, or they are somehow compelled. This is bad, but IMO, not as bad as...

2) The PCs have no impact on the world. The only actions that are effective are the ones that further the chosen story. Nothing else works. NPCs the DM didn't want killed will get away, alternative means of problem solving won't work, general cause and effect is ignored so that the plot will not be derailed.

Oftentimes the two come together. I don't see the presenting of one attractive choice and one boring choice as railroading. I don't mind being told, essentiallly, that "here is the adventure!" The important thing is for the characters to have some sense of choice, and that if they WERE to go down path 2, something would happen, and it would be at least slightly different than if they went down path one.

When I start a game, one of the handouts I give is called "Creating a Functioning Character." For the most part, it reminds people to be concious of the group when creating a character, but I think one line applies here as well: "There is a time when good role-playing needs to take a backseat to good gaming." Basically, it means that sometimes the most sensible path for the PCs, whether it relate to danger, adventure choices, interactions with the NPCs, or the way a character would react to something (the technical term being "But that's what my character would do!"), is not the most sensible choice for a GAME that is fun and fast-paced for everyone. Just like sometimes the rules need to be bent to provide a compelling, interally consistent world and plot, sometimes the believability of said world needs to take pause so that the game itself does not suffer.

As this applies to railroading, I think that the occasional nudge or bit of metagaming is necessary to keep the game moving. Otherwise the possibilities of the big wide world are too vast, and the PCs can wind up staring into the void going "...so what are we supposed to do?" The important thing is that the nudges be responsible: small, subtle, and infrequent. Even if they need to take path one, and path two will eventually lead to path one, the PCs need to be free to make the choices that they want, and know that something will happen as a result of the choice.

 

[Umbran]

I see no railroading here, as described.

This weekend I started playing in a short Gurps campaign. In the first session, we became fairly sure about who the BBEG is. He's a major public figure - finding him would not be a problem. We were made aware that he's got armies at his disposal, and we suspect major sorcerous power to boot.

Meanwhile, we were told of another route that clearly gave us an option to increase our own resources before tackling the BBEG.

Were we railroaded? Not at all. We made a choice based upon the strategic value of the paths available. No problem with that.

 

[questing gm]

It really depends on what 'accusable of railroading or adventure corruption' means?

The adventure corruption bit was supposed to be a joke

Well, i was thinking about this when i was writing an adventure. If influencing a PC's decision in making choices simply because it would (metagamingly speaking) be a better choice than the other, you could practically draw the PCs into the scenarios and encounters that you wanted them to simply by just making that choice seem more enticing...although i think the players would get sick with this method real quick...