El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
...and two items of food thrown at me
Hey, to get the good snacks, a DM's gotta do what he's gotta do...
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...
- Thread starter Walking Paradox
- Start date
Hey, to get the good snacks, a DM's gotta do what he's gotta do...
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Olgar's definition:
Railroading is what occurs when players lack the illusion of choice.
Ideally, players should be able to make meaningful choices in the game which can change the way they approach situations and affect the way the game develops. The is no right or wrong answer to a situation; there are only choices and consequences. Practically speaking, truly unlimited adventure design in this manner is hard to get right, so DMs limit choice. Done well, this is tranparent to the players -- the dungeon scenario is successful as a gaming environment because of this, as the players have choices (left corridor vs. right corridor; open a door vs. bypass it) while still limiting the number of outcomes to keep the game managable for the DM.
It is possible to design a game where there are essentially no choices that is still a good game because the DM still allows for the illusion of choice. An example might be a wilderness exploration adventure where the series of events that play out are predetermined but the players still pick from the right or left path, or whether to go into the mountains or hills -- it's just that the outcome is the same regardless of choice (assuming players aren't clever enough to go back to revisit the road not taken!).
On the worst kind of railroad there is not only no choice, it is obvious there isn't one.
Railroading is what occurs when players lack the illusion of choice.
Ideally, players should be able to make meaningful choices in the game which can change the way they approach situations and affect the way the game develops. The is no right or wrong answer to a situation; there are only choices and consequences. Practically speaking, truly unlimited adventure design in this manner is hard to get right, so DMs limit choice. Done well, this is tranparent to the players -- the dungeon scenario is successful as a gaming environment because of this, as the players have choices (left corridor vs. right corridor; open a door vs. bypass it) while still limiting the number of outcomes to keep the game managable for the DM.
It is possible to design a game where there are essentially no choices that is still a good game because the DM still allows for the illusion of choice. An example might be a wilderness exploration adventure where the series of events that play out are predetermined but the players still pick from the right or left path, or whether to go into the mountains or hills -- it's just that the outcome is the same regardless of choice (assuming players aren't clever enough to go back to revisit the road not taken!).
On the worst kind of railroad there is not only no choice, it is obvious there isn't one.
Last edited:
At this point, I think the king example is beat to death. Fact is, it was a 15the level adventure. it may be plausible, in character for the rogue to make the attempt.
I think those of us on the "that's a player being stupid" scenario have seen this kind of "bad" behavior (usually from people acting like 13 year olds). Most likely from a low-level PC doing stuff that every other player knows not to do. And that this situation is differentiated from a PC trying something innovative and daring, rather than WTF are you thinking. Context matters...
I'd like to dial back to the guy with the Flashing Blades campaign. The gist was, he said he made a ton of NPCs and had random encounter tables to trigger interactions with them. The idea being, these interactions get the PCs involved in stuff and alter how the PCs will engage the next random encounter which may also have relationships to past encounters.
Definitely sounds like a good no matter what kind of game style. When I talk about wanting story elements in my game, this is one of them. Stuff that happened before is related to whats happening now (with "random" stuff and "red herrings" thrown in now and then to break up the pattern. Fiction has this.
The question for the sandbox guys is this scenario: You've got X number of plot hooks (opportunities or threats) for the PCs to pursue. They pick one and pursue it.
Can you not make what happens next follow the 3 act story model?
If you're ad-libbing it using the content you have (locations and NPCs) and re-arranging things, can you not decide to reveal clues when the PCs get off track from their goal (wrong direction, mis-understood clue)? Can you not decide that things are heating up and so this is the "climax". Or that their failure at the last encounter is the "setback".
When I hear sandbox guys say you it can't be a story. I call bull-crap. I think you can have no clue on what's going to happen after the current encounter and still incorporate these concepts.
I often talk about not liking the idea of a sandbox, yet I love my Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. What I don't like about it, as I hear some folks preface it, is as a "status quo" sandbox. That's BS. With a human at the reigns, I want the world to react to my decisions. That has repercussions in the execution of it, that have to be accounted for in the meta-game.
Namely, just as with the argument against Critical Fumbles, the adventurer is going to be presented with more plot hooks (threats and opportunities) that he can't do them all at once. If the GM actively applies the consequences for ignoring them, especially the threats, the PC will ultimately lose.
Plus, the fact that PCs really don't have a choice with a threat, no more than you have a choice to ignore the mugger trying to rob you, so you can finish putting your groceries in the car.
As one guy said, "its not like the plot hook is going to go away." The reality is, except for static location opportunities, yes, they will go away, as most threats are immediate (the goblins will attack next week if you don't help), or time oriented opportunities (if you don't move in now, another mining company will claim that area).
I certainly think you couldn't go wrong with having lots of opportunities as plot hooks. Threats as plot hooks could be looked at as railroads by some, namely because if the PC is vested in the game, he really doesn't have a choice if that threat will affect him.
To wind this back to the original OP... Spider Man 2 on the PS2 is a sandbox. If you ignore the "story" quests, you can web-sling around NYC and help all the people you want in random encounters. At the end of the night though, you've technically done stuff, but it's not the samee as going through a story (and I mean a story framed around what your doing).
Perhaps, that's what the quote alludes to, a very sandbox of random encounters that don't relate to anything else, and thus don't build up to anything.
I'm certain that railroading (in my definition of it) is not the answer to that in any game style.
I think those of us on the "that's a player being stupid" scenario have seen this kind of "bad" behavior (usually from people acting like 13 year olds). Most likely from a low-level PC doing stuff that every other player knows not to do. And that this situation is differentiated from a PC trying something innovative and daring, rather than WTF are you thinking. Context matters...
I'd like to dial back to the guy with the Flashing Blades campaign. The gist was, he said he made a ton of NPCs and had random encounter tables to trigger interactions with them. The idea being, these interactions get the PCs involved in stuff and alter how the PCs will engage the next random encounter which may also have relationships to past encounters.
Definitely sounds like a good no matter what kind of game style. When I talk about wanting story elements in my game, this is one of them. Stuff that happened before is related to whats happening now (with "random" stuff and "red herrings" thrown in now and then to break up the pattern. Fiction has this.
The question for the sandbox guys is this scenario: You've got X number of plot hooks (opportunities or threats) for the PCs to pursue. They pick one and pursue it.
Can you not make what happens next follow the 3 act story model?
If you're ad-libbing it using the content you have (locations and NPCs) and re-arranging things, can you not decide to reveal clues when the PCs get off track from their goal (wrong direction, mis-understood clue)? Can you not decide that things are heating up and so this is the "climax". Or that their failure at the last encounter is the "setback".
When I hear sandbox guys say you it can't be a story. I call bull-crap. I think you can have no clue on what's going to happen after the current encounter and still incorporate these concepts.
I often talk about not liking the idea of a sandbox, yet I love my Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. What I don't like about it, as I hear some folks preface it, is as a "status quo" sandbox. That's BS. With a human at the reigns, I want the world to react to my decisions. That has repercussions in the execution of it, that have to be accounted for in the meta-game.
Namely, just as with the argument against Critical Fumbles, the adventurer is going to be presented with more plot hooks (threats and opportunities) that he can't do them all at once. If the GM actively applies the consequences for ignoring them, especially the threats, the PC will ultimately lose.
Plus, the fact that PCs really don't have a choice with a threat, no more than you have a choice to ignore the mugger trying to rob you, so you can finish putting your groceries in the car.
As one guy said, "its not like the plot hook is going to go away." The reality is, except for static location opportunities, yes, they will go away, as most threats are immediate (the goblins will attack next week if you don't help), or time oriented opportunities (if you don't move in now, another mining company will claim that area).
I certainly think you couldn't go wrong with having lots of opportunities as plot hooks. Threats as plot hooks could be looked at as railroads by some, namely because if the PC is vested in the game, he really doesn't have a choice if that threat will affect him.
To wind this back to the original OP... Spider Man 2 on the PS2 is a sandbox. If you ignore the "story" quests, you can web-sling around NYC and help all the people you want in random encounters. At the end of the night though, you've technically done stuff, but it's not the samee as going through a story (and I mean a story framed around what your doing).
Perhaps, that's what the quote alludes to, a very sandbox of random encounters that don't relate to anything else, and thus don't build up to anything.
I'm certain that railroading (in my definition of it) is not the answer to that in any game style.
Remathilis
Legend
Janx brings up a good point ie. video game sandboxes.
Due to limitations of digital media, even the sandboxiest game (Grand Theft Auto) features dual modes: a sandbox where you steal cars, kill hookers, buy property, play mini-games like ambulance driver, etc. Its fun, but for the story to advance, you need to do the missions which are very strongly rail-roaded.
Another example. In WoW, you can spend YEARS wandering the game selling, grinding, crafting, chatting with friends, and camping for loot without ever doing more than the opening missions. Sandbox in every word. Yet, there is no plot that springs from that; just the tales of your daily events. To face the Lich King and his minions requires a bit more rail-roading (visit here, slay that, fetch this) than typical grind/guild/raid check-ins.
A good DM can cover mask the stark difference between "grind" activities like selling loot or stealing ambulances and the "quest" missions better than a computer can. He can hide the scene changes, rework plot hooks, or even invert dungeons to make the transition from grind to quest look natural.
But it doesn't stop the fact that if you want Tony to get revenge or you want to slay the lich-king, you gotta bite the DMs plot hooks for a while.
Due to limitations of digital media, even the sandboxiest game (Grand Theft Auto) features dual modes: a sandbox where you steal cars, kill hookers, buy property, play mini-games like ambulance driver, etc. Its fun, but for the story to advance, you need to do the missions which are very strongly rail-roaded.
Another example. In WoW, you can spend YEARS wandering the game selling, grinding, crafting, chatting with friends, and camping for loot without ever doing more than the opening missions. Sandbox in every word. Yet, there is no plot that springs from that; just the tales of your daily events. To face the Lich King and his minions requires a bit more rail-roading (visit here, slay that, fetch this) than typical grind/guild/raid check-ins.
A good DM can cover mask the stark difference between "grind" activities like selling loot or stealing ambulances and the "quest" missions better than a computer can. He can hide the scene changes, rework plot hooks, or even invert dungeons to make the transition from grind to quest look natural.
But it doesn't stop the fact that if you want Tony to get revenge or you want to slay the lich-king, you gotta bite the DMs plot hooks for a while.
M.L. Martin
Hero
Fair enough, but I'd note that there's a tendency in some parts of this hobby for "railroading" to mean simply "not a consequence-free sandbox." It's sort of like how 'munchkin' has evolved to mean 'doubleplusungood'.
And again, by reports (I haven't listened to the podcast myself), Ken Hite was referring to this in the context of GUMSHOE and other investigation-oriented games, which play quite differently than D&D. (Something about 'typically not being driven by a rebellious, amoral, adolescent hatred of authority and Will to Power' might fit in here.
) He may also have been somewhat facetious; tone doesn't carry well in text. Did it sound completely serious in context?
Last edited:
nedjer
Adventurer
Hey, to get the good snacks, a DM's gotta do what he's gotta do...
Got a couple of my own marshmallows chucked at me. Escaped with no major head injuries despite not wearing a helmet. Lightly toasted the rest of the packet and used them as hot chocolate croutons.
Sorrowdusk
First Post
I know someones mentioned that the king example is probably beat to death, but I just read something today I wanted to bring up. I recall someone mentioning that for trying to pickpocket the king was worthy of "execution at least, historically". I'm not too sure about historical cases of being pickpocketed. ROBBING the kings funds is one thing, actually robbing his person (like maybe a ring) is still bad-but its not the same. (Although, they could regard that as treason if you weren't a foreigner) I have learned however that attempted regicide is on the far end of the scale and about as bad as it gets.
I would say if the rogue failed it would merit prison more than likely (depending on what deeds the rogue and his party had already done) or possibly just the party being mistrusted and the whole lot banished/thrown out.
I would say if the rogue failed it would merit prison more than likely (depending on what deeds the rogue and his party had already done) or possibly just the party being mistrusted and the whole lot banished/thrown out.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm reasonably confident in mine that a severe penalty for being caught is a more predictable outcome than laughing at the audacity of the thief. And that includes a general view of history as well, considering how severely theft has typically been punished.
This assumes that the only generative source of plot is the GM. This is true in the video games you're using as your model/analogy, but it's not true in a tabletop game: Players do not have to be entirely reactive. They can generate plot.
OTOH, this discussion of active vs. reactive play at the table is ultimately misleading because all gameplay involves both action and reaction. It's not a meaningful distinction between railroaded and non-railroaded play. I'm going to digress for a moment to present a definition of railroading:
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.
Returning more directly to your post, I think the term "plot hook" tends to carry with it some poor connotations because it implies the existence of a predetermined plot. It equates the presentation of any scenario or situation with railroading.
But if the mob boss the PCs pissed off last week sends an assassin to kill them, that's not railroading. That's just the game world reacting to their actions.
I've started referring to hooks as "scenario hooks". Not just for semantical clarity, but because I think there's an important aspect of technique inherent in the shift: A scenario hook is designed to make the players aware of an element of the game world that they can interact with. A plot hook is designed to make the players interact with an element of the game world in a specific way.
This doesn't really close anything off, but it does open up huge swaths of design territory that wouldn't be available under the plotted approach.
I can't give you more XP at this time....
you nailed my definition of railroading. those 2 modes are HOW railroading is typically enacted. The determining factor being motive by the GM.
On the term plot hook, I'm trying to use the terms Opportunity or Threat instead.
As in the GM makes the PCs aware of a relevant Opportunity for them, or a threat to them (or their concerns).
Tony seeking revenge against them would be a Threat. A potential weak link in Tony's network would have been the Opportunity they party pursued last week.
A Threat is something the PC will most likely have to deal with, as it very likely has bad consequences if ignored. Thus, it should be used sparingly, perhaps as a consequence to last week's game, or to goad the PCs back into action.
I reckon, there are folks who could see an chain of Threats to their PC as a railroad, as they don't have a practical Choice. Just as in real-life, if your car breaks down, and you need to get to work, that's the adventure you're going on, the quest to get to work/fix your car in time to go to work. Followed by next week's fight off the mugger who is trying to steal your newly repaired car.
Because the alternative means you get fired, can't make rent, and end up on the streets where you get shanked for beer money by a whino.
Generally, I don't consider any of that railroading, it's just the random encounters of life that you gotta deal with.
Where it gets to be railroading is that the GM plans for the mugger to steal your car, so nothing you do can succeed, often to the point of ridiculousness. Just so you can go on his adventure to recover your car, or go without it because he thought you had too much equipment, and wanted you to struggle.
