Railroading is bad?

[Varianor Abroad]

Conversely, a RailRoading DM not only gives no choices, but actively prevents you from succeeding at any choices that aren't on his prescribed plan. A RailRoading DM would ONLY allow you to mail in your rent check. He'd make the match blow out before you could burn the money. He'd make the roads blocked so you couldn't drive down to the landlord's with the cash. He'd do this, because the next scene in his story is for somebody to call the next day and ask where the money is, so he can get a PC to say, "The check's in the mail." which is a code phrase for the spies that accidentally called the wrong number.

Janx, this was a really great example. As someone who's played under a railroading DM, you described the problem exactly. I recall one dungeon where we could not find the secret door until he wanted us to. In another one, the scenario called for us to start off captured. We tried like heck to get away, and should have, but the NPCs kept making their rolls. This guy is a friend of mine, and he's very creative, but adventuring in his games, as another friend put it, is "lurching forward waiting for the plot to happen."

 

[The_Universe]

That's the impression I got.

Me too, which is why I think the definition is ridiculously broad, and waited far in favor of players (who, in their favor, do generally outnumber the DM's in any given game).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Me too, which is why I think the definition is ridiculously broad, and waited far in favor of players (who, in their favor, do generally outnumber the DM's in any given game).

Of course, when I sign up to play a game under a DM, I expect them to make the game interesting. Frankly, if I or my fellow players got every choice we wanted in a game, it would suck.

 

[The_Universe]

Of course, when I sign up to play a game under a DM, I expect them to make the game interesting. Frankly, if I or my fellow players got every choice we wanted in a game, it would suck.

You and me both. But I get the feeling that you and I are in one camp, and Jupp (and some of the other posters hereabouts) are in another. To a degree, there's a valid play philosophy that makes the game the personal story of the players, with the DM just there to help them tell whatever tale that is. That's not how *I* DM (or play), but the posters here have made it abundantly clear that such groups exists and are reasonably common. I prefer a little more give and take between the players and the DM, but in order for that to happen, players have to accept the consequences for their actions that are so often identified as railroading.

In short, there are three levels:

1.) The DM has control of the game. This is usually referred to as "high railroading." Cause and effect is entirely in the hands of the DM.
2.) The Players and DM share control of the game. This has some "railroading" but still allows the players a reasonable degree of control over their collective destinies. The players provide some cause, and some effect, and so does the DM.
3.) The Players have control of the game. The DM may only run the game in a way that they approve of, as he is merely providing the background for their story or stories. Cause and effect are in the hands of the players.

I tend toward the top of the list, as I'm sure you all have guessed. That being said, I think 2 is the most valid kind of play, but that people who most often complain about railroading expect something like 3. Of course, the lines between them are far from clear, and I won't even try to pass some objective judgement on which is best. All I can say is that as a DM, I'd never run a game in category 3, I'd probably have an easy time running a game in category 1 (and might even be able to make it look like a game in category 2 or 3) but concentrate my efforts in running a game in category 2.

Now, these categories use fairly generous definitions of railroading. I don't necessarily agree with the definitions (since, as you all can tell, I think something has to be *really* blatant and illogical to constitute railroading), but I've used them in what I imagine are their common meanings to illustrate the idea.

 

[AIM-54]

Ultimately, it's a matter of taste. Some people/groups may be perfectly happy following a DM's story. Others will rebel at anything that takes away from player control. I think the majority probably fall in the middle somewhere, generally weighted towards GM control. Using the metrics devised by The Universe, I would have 0 interest in playing in either a 1 or a 3 game, but my preference is weighted towards 3, but still within the 2 metric.

I think there's a great deal of conflict on this issue simply because of the recent trend (among some, and I admit it's probably only recent in terms of my conscious awareness of it) towards RPGs as storytelling. Storytelling is of course part of it, but ultimately I think the game aspect needs to be (re-?)emphasized. But that's my personal perspective. If a player wants their character to be involved in something with little to nothing to do with the plot, that should be allowed if not encouraged, and need not ultimately be tied up with the plot.

But of course, that's all based on my preference for free flowing, more seat of the pants gaming, which is reflected in my GMing style. I think a lot of games would be more fun if GM's released their death grip on whatever their plot of the day is.

 

[Stormborn]

The Universe's levels make some degree of sense, although I think the continum of choices could be broadened somewhat. Where a 1 is complete DM control, Players only react to what the DM chooses to allow, and 10 being Players have complete control, and the DM merely provides background and the random elements innappropriate for players to deal with (the level 3 in the Universe's example). I doubt any wants to play in 1 or 10, but it would be interesting to see the groupings. If I can figure out the levels, or at least some with the input from some of the others on this thread I will post a new thread with a poll. I have a feeling that most people are going to fall somewhere around 3-4 and 7-8.

 

[Jupp]

But based on your previous statements, aren't all planned encounters *by their nature* railroading?

Absolutely not. I do not mean that railroading=planned encounter. Others have already said that you can place pre-planned encounters in the way of the PCs if they didnt take the bait some sessions ago. But you have to do it in a way that it does not look "forced" because that would leave a bad taste on the whole encounter, and perhaps on the rest of the adventure. If players think they are acting with strings attached to their hands it is very hard to overcome that feeling later on.

That red dragon post was a good example. An exaggeration, but it hits the nail on the head.

Now, there is the other way, and that is if the DM is good enough to steer the players around without them knowing it. As I said before, it is only railroading if the players think it is so. The good (or bad ) thing is that players tend to have a good nose regarding railroading, at least that is my experience so far, but that feat is sometimes lacking on DMs because they are so involved into (and in love with) their storylines and they want to see the grand finale at all costs. Sometimes a DM has to let go of a plot in favor of the fun the players have while doing something different outside the road the DM has planned for them.

 

[Stormborn]

Jupp, are you primarilly a player or a DM? Just curious about the "in love with their storylines" comments. This sounds like a player's perspective, and nothing wrong with that. Or are you speaking from personal experiance, and the plots you were "in love with"?

I think personal experiance plays heavilly into all of this. If a person tended to have experiances with a DM who they felt like forced their hand then they would tend to be very "anti-railroading" and be quick to judge any percieved railroading as a horrible thing that should be stopped. The opposite is also true, if someone played witha DM who left things wide open for the players but the experiance wasn't satisfying, they that person would want to have a little more "railroading"

On the other hand, if someone tended to deal with a DM who they enjoyed playing with, that persons style would become prefered.

 

[The_Universe]

If I can figure out the levels, or at least some with the input from some of the others on this thread I will post a new thread with a poll. I have a feeling that most people are going to fall somewhere around 3-4 and 7-8.

Do what you will. I wouldn't want to railroad you.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Here's a definition I've seen that I think is useful.

Force is when a GM directs the flow of play. (Obviously, every game has some of this.)

Railroading is just what we call it when the amount of force applied makes the players unhappy. Usually this is when it goes to the point of taking away their choices, but not always.

Then there's Illusionism, which is when the GM applies plenty of force but the group doesn't "look behind the curtain". The "All Roads Lead to Rome" technique people have been describing falls under this category.

I like these definitions because it means I can give up on the philosophical analysis and just focus on communicating with the players to make sure they feel their freedom of choice is intact.