Players: Does anyone else not mind railroading?

[Janx]

There are a few ways to "not railroad" and get that result:

1. Player buy-in, the player's like the idea, and are willing to take a risk that'd normally= death, knowing that if they fail they'll just end up enslaved instead.

2. Player prophecy-fudging; the player's take the idea and run with it. Sure, it looked like they were being enslaved but really they'd engineered their position there, in order to overthrow the slavers

3. Wait for your chance: it might take a while, but at some point the players are going to be in a position where they can get captured.

Combinations of those, and other options, are possibilities. They all require some degree of player buy-in, but so does playing an RPG in the first place.

It may be possible to do the opening scene and then rewind to let the players see how they got there, without doing "bad railroading".

However, I'm concerned that it creates a greater potential for "bad railroading". Just as writing "in this encounter, the elven patrol will take the party prisoner, and then march them to see the chieftain" increases the likelyhood that the GM will try to force a capture and willfully obstruct any valid solution to prevent capture.

This is one of the reasons why I advise new DMs to avoid trying to capture the party. Because it can lead to bad GMing. Despite the fact that capture is a decent solution to not killing a PC. It's a fine line of when it's useful, and when it's dangerous.

I've mentioned this in another thread, but I wonder if perhaps there should be considered GM Rules of Engagement, on what's fair technique for a GM. Perhapps the list may vary from table to table.

for instance, Celebrim listed a bunch of very good examples of "bad railroading" instances. However, one I disagreed with was the "all roads lead to Rome", though his phrasing was different, and I think there are 2 different varieties of it.

In the bad version, if the BBEG is in the east, and the party knows it and heads west (presumably to avoid him), the BBEG should not be waiting in the west when they get there. That's bad "All Roads Lead to Rome" usage because the GM is thwarting player intent.

If the players have a choice between walking to EastVille and WestVille, and an NPC with a new plothook was written as "drinking in the EastVille Inn, bemoaning his plight" and the players go to WestVille (unaware of any of this), then it is perfectly acceptable to move the NPC to the WestVille Inn, so you can still use the plothook. This is simply reusing material, not willfull obstruction.

the real point is when the GM reads the notes on the adventure, they don't interpret it as a literal program. If they see the encounter says "the elven patrol will capture the party", they interpret it as "the elven patrol will TRY to capture the party". If he reads "Bob the new NPC is sitting in EastVille Inn with a plot hook", he can interpret it as "Bob the new NPC is sitting at the NEXT Inn the party arrives at."

The gist is, some game elements are allowed to float, and be moved to where they will be useful, rather than wasted as content the party never sees. Other game elements can't float, as they are very much tied to what the PCs know and decide to do.

 

[Celebrim]

for instance, Celebrim listed a bunch of very good examples of "bad railroading" instances.

Just for the record, I wasn't attempting to pass judgment on railroading. I wasn't listing 'bad railroading'. I was listing things that are 'railroading' for the purpose of contrasting actual 'railroading' with notions like 'having a plot' or 'proactive villains' and so forth that people seem to be bundling into the notion of 'railroading'. I was trying to suggest that an overly broad use of the term made it nondescription. There are alot of people asserting that they don't mind 'railroading' when what they mean is they willingly agree to bite the DM's hooks and expect them to be provided. However, hooking the PC's and providing a storyline is not in and of itself railroading. You really can't detect railroading until you try to get off.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

Since the term Railroad already has a negative connotation, I prefer my definition of railroading to be tighly bound to specific negative traits, that most gamers would agree are bad.

My issue with this is that railroading is frequently used to refer to a style of play that is the opposite of a sandbox. By bundling that style up with those negative connotations, it implicitly biases our dialogue in favor of sandboxes when, as I said, I don't actually believe sandboxes to be an inherantly superior playstyle in any way.

 

[Scribble]

My issue with this is that railroading is frequently used to refer to a style of play that is the opposite of a sandbox. By bundling that style up with those negative connotations, it implicitly biases our dialogue in favor of sandboxes when, as I said, I don't actually believe sandboxes to be an inherantly superior playstyle in any way.

I feel this is a misuse of the term "railroad."

In all my years of gaming, "Railroading" has been considered bad form, and never a good thing. (And never the "opposite" of sandbox.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

The terms 'linear' or 'adventure path' are available if you want to refer to games which are at the opposite end of the spectrum to sandboxes in a non-pejorative way.

Sandbox mostly, or even exclusively, refers to campaigns (and thus choice at the choosing-the-adventure level), as does 'adventure path' ofc. Linear is mostly used to refer to adventures, so one can have linear and non-linear adventures.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Here's what the 4e DMG has to say about railroading:

Railroading: If a series of events occurs no matter what the characters do, the players end up feeling helpless and frustrated. Their actions don’t matter, and they have no meaningful choices. A dungeon that has only a single sequence of rooms and no branches is another example of railroading. If your adventure relies on certain events, provide multiple ways those events can occur, or be prepared for clever players to prevent one or more of those events. Players should always feel as though they’re in control of their characters, the choices they make matter, and that what they do has some effect on the end of the adventure and on the game world.

- pg 101

 

[pemerton]

That's risky though. It can lead to the GM willfully obstructing the players choices, just to get to the "opening scene" situation.

<snip>

I'm not sure I can "not railroad" to get the party in chains on the slave ship.

<snip>

To put a PC in chains, requires some specific things to happen, that the PC is going to resist. Whereas, the PC is not going to resist confronting a BBEG, because that's what he does for a living.

It may be possible to do the opening scene and then rewind to let the players see how they got there, without doing "bad railroading".

However, I'm concerned that it creates a greater potential for "bad railroading". Just as writing "in this encounter, the elven patrol will take the party prisoner, and then march them to see the chieftain" increases the likelyhood that the GM will try to force a capture and willfully obstruct any valid solution to prevent capture.

This relates to the GM's power to frame the situation.

If the GM plays out an encounter with the slavers, or the elves, and fudges rolls or thwarts player choices, I would regard that as "bad railroading" - what is the point of engaging the game's action resolution mechanics if they're not actually doing anything?

But if the GM just begins "Remember how, at the end of the last session, you went to sleep in the inn room. Well, now you wake chained in the hold of a rocking boat" then it's not as if player choices have been thwarted. (It would be different if the players had themselves taken precautions to protect their inn room, although one way to handle this would be somehow to confer a benefit on the players that reflects those precautions while still framing the scene as a slaveship capture - D&D makes this harder than some other systems do.)

Unless there's an implicit or explicit understanding that the action resolution mechanics will be used every time they might be used, no rule has been broken by the GM. Of course, you would want the players to be happy with the adventure the GM is presenting to them.

There are a few ways to "not railroad" and get that result:

1. Player buy-in, the player's like the idea, and are willing to take a risk that'd normally= death, knowing that if they fail they'll just end up enslaved instead.

2. Player prophecy-fudging; the player's take the idea and run with it. Sure, it looked like they were being enslaved but really they'd engineered their position there, in order to overthrow the slavers

3. Wait for your chance: it might take a while, but at some point the players are going to be in a position where they can get captured.

Combinations of those, and other options, are possibilities. They all require some degree of player buy-in, but so does playing an RPG in the first place.

Or 4. You don't need the players to take risks, nor to wait for your chance - once you've got player buy in (express or implicity) you just do it!

I think it's a mistake to classify all scene-framing by the GM as railroading. Sometimes its just an application of "say yes or roll the dice" - only from the players to the GM, rather than vice versa.

 

[blargney the second]

I like to make the choo choo noises.

 

[Mallus]

Generally speaking, I don't mind being my characters being railroaded into a problem. I don't like being railroading into a solution. Once the goals are defined, I prefer a free hand in achieving them, usually through plans which winningly combine rashness and convolution.

While I don't like to run linear, adventure path-style campaigns, I don't mind playing in them, so long as I know it's clear from the start the games going to be run like that.

Actually, what's most important to me isn't freedom of action, it's freedom of invention. Even as a player I like to make shi stuff up. I get a kick out of characterization, not only my PC's personality, but his or her homeland, race, culture, guild, order, university, rivals, relatives, and/or pets, etc. There are usually awful puns involved...

Without the freedom to engage in a little of this, the game loses a lot of its shine.

 

[The Shaman]

If I'm playing an espionage or military game, I expect my character to receive assignments.

Otherwise I want nothing to do with your plots. You provide the world, and the other players and I will supply the adventure.