TSR How Did I Survive AD&D? Fudging and Railroads, Apparently

[TiQuinn]

Why is railroading always talked about in negative context? Some groups enjoy railroads. Good DM can turn railroad into roller coaster. It twists, turns, goes up and down, but it always stays on track and doesn't allow for deviations.

You can also enforce those rails by social contract. I'm familiar enough with before mentioned Masks, but decent amount of CoC adventures are linear and railroady. If i say i'll run CoC adventure Horror on Orient express and player say they want to play it, then we are playing that adventure. If they decide to exit train at one of the stops and never to return to train, then they are breaching that deal. Can DM wing it? Sure, if he is experienced enough and has talent for improvisation. Personally, i would just end game then and there. We had agreed to play Orient Express, not my home brew game. For whatever reason, you decided to exit from planned adventure, which is totally players right. Maybe they got bored of it. Again, cool. Let's end it and play something else.

Are you saying the Orient Express is on rails????

(waits)

(hears crickets)

Tough crowd.

I think it depends on whether you are upfront about it. A railroad where everyone is aware that and buy into a conceit of the adventure (the adventure is on the train; you leave the train, you’re leaving the adventure) is fine. A railroad in a game where you give the illusion of choice is bad.

I think most campaigns are actually never fully sandboxes and never fully railroads. They shift between the two. I’ll use Ravenloft as an example. You know that you need to kill Strahd. How you do it is up to the party. But nopeing out of the adventure isn’t possible. There’s a choking fog surrounding the village and castle that will only be lifted if you slay Strahd. Now, you as the DM could easily change that - you just have to be prepared to shift if the party says “Nope, Strahd’s gonna kick our butt. We’re outta here.”

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes it does. If it has nothing to keep the players on any rails it is not a railroad. The simple absence of anything that isn't part of a central plotline does not indicate the players cannot do anything else. It's just a fact that no amount of planning can cover all eventualities. But a human GM can. That's why you have one, and not a computer. The human GM can create any additional material as and when it is required. This is fundamental to the nature of RPGs, it doesn't need to be written into the adventure, and declining to do so is an abjuration of responsibility.

For me this is the heart of what makes RPGs tick

 

[pemerton]

Why is railroading always talked about in negative context?

It isn't always. Upthread I already linked to a reasonably sophisticated discussion of railroading techniques: Observations on GNS Simulationism – Correspondence is about Diligence

 

[pemerton]

What point is that? Not all rulesets are strong in all areas?

No. To illustrate the difference between the players being expected to know what is at stake and the players not being expected to know. In the latter case, I don't think worries about "quantum ogres" have any purchase, because the GM's decisions about what sort of opposition might be where is relevant only to the GM, and the GM's decisions about what sorts of situations to present. Those decisions are not providing any context for the players to make meaningful choices, if the players aren't even expected to know what is at stake.

You’re asking a hypothetical about a scenario in which I believe the DM is making a mistake in the way they’re running the game.

It's a very common way to run games. You may not like it. I don't. But it's not a mistake. It's not going to cause the game to fail, if the players are happy with it.

But in my view a GM running that sort of game, who then worried about ENworld posters expressing consternation over "quantum ogres" and similar, would in my view be worried about nothing.

I think most campaigns are actually never fully sandboxes and never fully railroads. They shift between the two.

I don't think this sort of generalisation is very helpful. For a start it assumes that sandbox and railroads are two poles that define the "space" of RPGing possibilities. And they're not. Just as one example, scene-framing-type play is neither a sandbox nor a railroad.

 

[TiQuinn]

No. To illustrate the difference between the players being expected to know what is at stake and the players not being expected to know. In the latter case, I don't think worries about "quantum ogres" have any purchase, because the GM's decisions about what sort of opposition might be where is relevant only to the GM, and the GM's decisions about what sorts of situations to present. Those decisions are not providing any context for the players to make meaningful choices, if the players aren't even expected to know what is at stake.

Again, that's cherry picking across different editions of the game and ascribing issues from those editions to the game as a whole.

It's a very common way to run games. You may not like it. I don't. But it's not a mistake. It's not going to cause the game to fail, if the players are happy with it.

There's always the caveat with any game that if it works for you and your table, then that overrides everything. But we aren't really talking about that are we? We are poking at how the game works, and what works best for a majority of players.

I don't think this sort of generalisation is very helpful. For a start it assumes that sandbox and railroads are two poles that define the "space" of RPGing possibilities. And they're not. Just as one example, scene-framing-type play is neither a sandbox nor a railroad.

Is scene-framing a generalization? It seems very generalized.

 

[pemerton]

We are poking at how the game works, and what works best for a majority of players.

As best I can tell, what works for the majority of D&D players is a pretty railroad-y game, in which the players' main job is (i) to embellish scenes with colour, via some relatively non-impactful play of their PCs, and (ii) to move from combat to combat by following moderately oblique clues provided by the GM.

In this approach to play, "quantum ogres" will not create any problems at all, as they don't undermine either (i) or (ii).

Is scene-framing a generalization? It seems very generalized.

Scene-framing-type play is an approach to play that is an approach to play that is neither a sandbox, nor a railroad, nor some intermediate or hybrid approach. A railroad assume GM authority over both content and scene-framing. A sandbox assumes GM authority over content but a certain sort of player control over scene-framing (by making choices about what actions to take to "enliven" what bits of the sandbox). Scene-framed play rests on GM authority over scene-framing but takes a very different approach to how content is established and developed.

You can see a discussion of the approach, in the context of D&D play, in this thread: D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

 

[Clint_L]

As best I can tell, what works for the majority of D&D players is a pretty railroad-y game, in which the players' main job is (i) to embellish scenes with colour, via some relatively non-impactful play of their PCs, and (ii) to move from combat to combat by following moderately oblique clues provided by the GM.

Huh. Your D&D experiences sound terrible. I think you are projecting onto the "majority of D&D players."

 

[S'mon]

Huh. Your D&D experiences sound terrible. I think you are projecting onto the "majority of D&D players."

I think it may be more "works best for publishers" rather than "works best for players", but certainly it's what a lot of players have been trained to accept, and it's what Adventurers League etc offer. My own experience is that a lot of players like sandboxing, a lot like Pemertonian Scene Framing, and a lot like the Linear Adventure Path. I have had good times in all three but leaning hard into sandboxing right now. I used Scene Framing techniques in my Cyberpunk Red campaign earlier this year and that was great too.

 

[S'mon]

I think it may be more "works best for publishers" rather than "works best for players", but certainly it's what a lot of players have been trained to accept, and it's what Adventurers League etc offer. My own experience is that a lot of players like sandboxing, a lot like Pemertonian Scene Framing, and a lot like the Linear Adventure Path. I have had good times in all three but leaning hard into sandboxing right now. I used Scene Framing techniques in my Cyberpunk Red campaign earlier this year and that was great too.

I've certainly experienced players in a sandbox looking around for the quest rails with a slight air of puzzlement Conversely scene framing seems very easy for players to grasp, you get the occasional premise-rejector, but basically the kind of improv comedy and drama techniques you see on TV etc work fine here

 

[overgeeked]

Why is railroading always talked about in negative context?

Because it is negative.

Some groups enjoy railroads.

Literally never met a player who enjoys being railroaded. Referees on the net love it and claim their players can’t tell or love it. In 40 years of playing and running, never met one player who liked it.

Good DM can turn railroad into roller coaster. It twists, turns, goes up and down, but it always stays on track and doesn't allow for deviations.

Right. It’s no longer a collaborative experience and is simply the referee telling the players a story as some kind of dinner theater with dice. That’s why players hate it and it’s only talked about negatively.