"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...

[Janx]

It shouldn't take 2 to 3 hours to resolve that situation. You simply tell them the guards have arrested their friend.

Except the rogue player may claim you just railroaded him by not playing out his capture.


You're better off not rewarding the forker in the first place. leave him hanging the moment he starts heading away from the party.


I'm all for the DM moving things around, adding clues to keep the game moving forward. Forward being defined as the pursuit of the players goal with fair or reasonable obstacles and setbacks.

Railroading to me is when the DM not only assumes a certain path through the adventure, he thwarts any other attempt to choose differently, arbitrarily, rather than as an outcome of gameplay or reasonableness.

I don't think I like the idea of a wide-open sandbox. I don't want to have to write that much material. I also want the retelling of the game's event to make a decent story.

So, I plan my game with presenting the players with an opportunity or threat to their interests that I'm certain they'll pursue. If its a little weak, or iffy, I'll do mulitiple. I avoid "The king asks you to..." type plots. I generally make mine based directly on what the players want to do, or threats to what the PC cares about.

From there, as a DM, I assume the PCs will be successful, barring critical failure. Meaning I expect they'll confront the big challenge. But I don't know how they'll get there (though I can guess). So I'll document the kinds of things that are in the way of getting the end goal.

At that point, I suppose the game becomes a partial sandbox. Once the players opt to pursue the goal, I relay them information that lets them determine their tactical options, and they start trying stuff.

If they go the wrong direction to their chosen goal (presumably a misunderstanding of the facts), I'll either reveal it or re-arrange things to recycle content and still keep things interesting. Presumably, going the wrong way would have some setback effect, but once overcome, they'd be able to continue with their goal.

It is possible that through luck or mistake, the party could fail. Just because I assume they'll succeed, that only means i've figured out stuff that was between them and the goal. It doesn't literally mean they get a free pass. So in each encounter, I'm winging what happens next, and shifting my content for the repercussions if there are any.

What I think the OP's podcast point was, that in an extremely dull game with no compelling hooks, the party sits around the bar causing trouble. And thats it. By my definition of Railroad, Railroading isn't the solution.

The solution to a boring game is to present opportunities and threats the PCs/Players are interested in pursuing. And ideally, there should be more opportunities, than threats. Because threats make the player feel he has no choice (I have to stop the goblin raid or they'll wipe out my mining operation).

Once the players choose a goal (wipe out the goblins in the local dungeon, so we can expand our mining operations to there), the GM may still have to take a pro-active hand at getting the players to the end.

I think the key to that is recognizing what the players goal is, and presenting clues and information so they know which ways are viable, and which are dead-ends. Dead-ends being unintential wrong-turns to meeting the goal, not unconventional solutions to meeting the goal.

 

[The Shaman]

"Um, listen," Joss Whedon says to Sara Michelle Gellar, "Buffy can shoot Willow in the face with the shotgun, but you will all regret it if she does."

"Okay, that sounds interesting." *click-CLACK!* *BOOM!*

What you're describing is the antithesis of what I look for in a roleplaying game.

 

[CleverNickName]

The rogue learns a lesson, gets his moment in the spotlight, and creates an ongoing dialogue between the PCs.

But this isn't exactly cool, either. Players hate it when the DM "railroads" them into something they don't want to participate in. And in the same vein, everybody hates it when a player starts "showboating," and makes the game all about himself and his character.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree with the above definition, telling the players "no, you can't do that" is railroading.

Within particular contexts I agree.

The players are the main characters of the story. They should have free reign to make decisions that change the course of events.

Yes, and no. If the story can go anywhere, they it can also go nowhere.

At the same time, some players need direction. Branching paths is one way to do it. Another is to just throw out the hook and hope they bite. If they don't, you just gotta roll with it.

Preparation is key, but no good fisherman just "throws out a hook". They bait that hook, they fish at the right time of day, in the "special spot", with a lot of beer.

I think doing a lot of prep work before a game and planning out the story in advance makes for a boring game. Creative, collaborative storytelling is where it's at.

A lot of prep-work is good if you're covering all your bases. A lot of prep work is bad if it's incredibly linear.

I'm in a couple games, one is total sandbox, the DM will literally let you do anything that is not outright breaking the rules. The other is much more linear(being EN's WotBS), and while the DM ensures we have options, we're all well aware that there is a central storyline to follow.

I can't stand "do what you want" sandboxes. They're boring and annoying because it's incredibly difficult to get players to cooperate if each of them can go off and do their own thing and not have any incentive to communicate what they find with others. A little direction, even in sandbox, such as "scouts have discovered ruins to the east and west, do you want to explore them?" is enough direction for me.

 

[Janx]

"Okay, that sounds interesting." *click-CLACK!* *BOOM!*

What you're describing is the antithesis of what I look for in a roleplaying game.

what part?

The part where Sara wants to act out of character and have Buffy who loathes guns use one to shoot her best friend for no apparent reason?

Or the part where Joss tells Sara that she shouldn't do it.

I vote for the former. I don't want to play in a game where the players do random, pointless and disruptive things.

Solve that, and the latter would have no need to happen.


There seems to be a type of player who's end goal seems to be disrupting gameplay, rational behavior or party goals. Its kind of like if one of the actors on the set of a movie decided to not only ignore the script, but to do everything in their power to tank the filming.

 

[MortonStromgal]

Sometimes I'm not interested in the Orc attack, I just want to get back to farming. Sure the Orcs may take over the lands and then I get thrown into slavery to them but thats part of the fun. I made a decision not to take care of the Orc threat when they were small and easy. Whats important is that all the players are at lease mostly on the same page that we are more interested in our daily lives than handling the Orcs. As long as we all buy into that it makes for a great game.

I just dont want the King to threaten my farmer with taking my lands if I dont go attack the Orcs in the cave or other force the PC situations. Consequences are different than being forced down a path.

 

[The Shaman]

what part?

Creating a story and a progression of adventures to tell it. Coercing the players (as with the high DC for the pickpocket-the-king attempt) or engaging in a meta-discussion to keep the "story" in order.

Clearly this works for CleverNickName's group, and more power to them for it - I would politely excuse myself the moment it became clear that the players' in-character choices were not driving the game, for I want nothing to do whatsoever with that gaming style.

The part where Sara wants to act out of character and have Buffy who loathes guns use one to shoot her best friend for no apparent reason?

Or the part where Joss tells Sara that she shouldn't do it.

I vote for the former. I don't want to play in a game where the players do random, pointless and disruptive things.

My knowledge of Buffy lies somewhere between jack and - I saw the original movie once (mmmmmmm . . . Kristy Swanson), but that's it - but "stopping Willow" sounds neither random nor pointless; it sounds like Willow is a threat, so stopping her makes sense. Calling a halt to the game to tell me that, "No, no, this npc needs to live for the epic finale!" means I'm clearly playing in the wrong game.

There seems to be a type of player who's end goal seems to be disrupting gameplay, rational behavior or party goals. Its kind of like if one of the actors on the set of a movie decided to not only ignore the script, but to do everything in their power to tank the filming.

And these players need to be firmly reminded that being disruptive is unacceptable, and kicked to the curb if they can't get it.

But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[invokethehojo]

True, and there is nothing wrong with this course of action. Unfortunately, it will take away 2 or 3 hours of our already-scarce gaming time, just to chase a dead-end. While the player learns his lesson, everyone else at the table is rolling their eyes, twiddling their fingers, stacking their dice, and muttering things like "can we just get back to the story?"

It is important to protect a character's sense of freedom...nobody likes to be told what they can and cannot do, especially in a role-playing game. But the DM also has to keep everyone else's fun in mind. By allowing the rogue character to pick the king's pocket (and sabotaging him to fail, no less), the game becomes All About The Rogue for a couple of hours. And that's fun for the rogue's player, but not much fun for anyone else.

But I didn't just drop the ban-hammer and say "NO." I stopped the game and said something like "Look, you guys really need to keep the king on your side. You never know when you might need a favor, hint hint." The New Guy didn't care for that, accused me of railroading, and sulked for the rest of the session. Everyone else had a fairly good time, though. (shrug)

I agree with this wholeheartedly. RPG's are a social activity, and when someone is about to screw up everyone's fun then that person is being selfish. If you were all deciding which movie to watch everyone wouldn't go along with a movie only one guy wanted to see, and the same should go with decisions during play.

Besides, while the player might think it is cool to pick the kings pocket, you have to imagine his player as a real person. Who the hell would want to pick the king's pocket!?! Unless you knew there was a priceless gem in there and thought you could get away with it, no actual person would do that unless they were drunk or crazy. So just remind the player that while he could just shoot a guy with a cool car and take it just like in grand theft auto, he wouldn't do that (unless he had a really good reason at least).

 

[Dausuul]

Besides, while the player might think it is cool to pick the kings pocket, you have to imagine his player as a real person. Who the hell would want to pick the king's pocket!?! Unless you knew there was a priceless gem in there and thought you could get away with it, no actual person would do that unless they were drunk or crazy. So just remind the player that while he could just shoot a guy with a cool car and take it just like in grand theft auto, he wouldn't do that (unless he had a really good reason at least).

Hmm... I would approach it a bit differently. It's bad form to tell a player what his/her character would or would not do, under almost any circumstances. Instead, I would point out that the chances of success are low, the chances of escape if you fail are even lower, and the penalty for being caught is execution.

If the player went ahead and did it anyhow, I would fast-forward through the whole thing. Roll a Thievery check to see if you succeed--no? Okay, one of the guards spots you and steps forward to grab you while other guards block the exits. What do you do? You're running? Exits are blocked, you can try a bull rush with your 12 Strength if you like. You're pulling out your dagger and trying to stab one of the guards on the exits? Really, a weapon in the king's presence? The guards attack without mercy. Hang on a second. (consult Monster Manual, get suitable stats for the guards, triple their damage and reduce their hit points to 1/3 normal in order to speed things up) (brief and brutal combat ensues) Looks like you're dead. Make a new PC while the rest of the party apologizes to His Majesty and tries to smooth things over.

 

[pemerton]

I agree, but how about this:
The game itself is limited in-game. For instance, the players want to have lot of freedom to do things like, but they're unable to find solution in-game to do them. In the end they are attempting to do lots of things, but they fail most of the time.

I remember the last time I was being accused of railroading, and it did hurt me a lot... I was running Dark Sun, and I told my players that they need to make notes during the game. They reacted with silence... Then a NPC gave one of the PC's a password, which was crucial to continue the adventure. However, when the password was needed, he didn't remember and he didn't have it written down. I called for a INT-check, and it failed. They were unable to continue the adventure, and their attemps to otherwise circumvent the situation were unsuccessful. The password was simply necessary.

Another way of railroading beyond directly saying "no, you can't do that," is to force things to happen despite the choices of the players and their PCs. I've been in situations where the PCs have laid out a plan to get the macguffin. It is a solid plan, but everything they come up with has miraculously been anticipated by the villain and countered. It was so obvious that the script required the PCs to not get the Macguffin in this particular chapter. The DM never said the players could not do something, but he prevented anything they did from being effective in order to say on script.

I would tnd to regard both of these as examples of railroading.

It doesn't become a non-railroad just because the inability of the players to shape the game results from ingame states of affairs rather than a metagame state of affairs. If the GM has set up the gameworld in such a way that the players can't change the situation in some way that they want to, this is (from the players' point of view) no less constraining than if the GM simply says "No, you can't do that".

I don't want to play in a game where the players do random, pointless and disruptive things.

Nor do I. But this is different from requiring the players to have their PCs follow a preplanned plot written by the GM.

It appears to me that the podcaster may be so unfortunate as to never have run a campaign with proactive and engaged players.

I think this is a pretty condescending attitude to take towards Ken Hite.