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

[Lanefan]

Theoretically, yes. That's possible. Realistically? No. That doesn't happen. People don't spend all week saying "we're definitely going to attack the slavers next week" and then sit down at the game table and say "actually, it, let's go kill the king instead".

You haven't met my players, have you?

All too often they'll make plans at the end of a session to do something or go somewhere next session, so during the week I'll give some thought to what might result from this. But when the next session starts they've completely forgotten the plans they made last week and start the planning process over again, often resulting in their doing something different to their decision from the previous week and throwing such prep as I've done out the window.

Players are not random number generators.

Correct. They're random action generators.

Lan-"random numbers are left to the dice"-efan

 

[pemerton]

A guy on planet X hires you to get someone on planet Y and bring it to him for a fat sum of money (a fetch quest).

Since the only place that someone is on planet Y, is that now a railroad?

By your definition, it is.

Like RC, The Shaman and Chaouchou said, it's only a railroad if the GM forces the players to take their PCs to planet X (whether the force is overt or covert). If the GM simply introduces the option of going to planet Y into the game, and the players take it up, there is no railroad.

How, exactly, is it any different from telling your PCs "You can't go south, I don't have an adventure planned"? Shouldn't the DM have to "wing it" because that's part of the beauty of sandbox play?

Railroading isn't about preparation vs winging it - it's about forcing the players to play their PCs in a certain way, and about the GM controlling play at the expense of the players. If the GM hasn't got stuff prepared, the GM hasn't got stuff prepared. Once the GM tells this to the players, the players can either agree to take a break (like Shaman said) or can agree to do something else that the GM has got prepared, or can even urge the GM to wing it.

why should the DM bother to plan or prepare anything, if he knows players can just walk away from it any time they like?

Well, in my case I prepare stuff that I'm pretty confident will engage the players, because it "bites" the hooks that they have built into their PCs via character backstory and prior play. Sometimes I misjudge. In those circumstances discussions of the sort just mentioned take place, and a compromise is reached - I wing something or prep something new, or the players follow a lead that's not their first preference while I do my best, in GMing it, to bring it into line with what the players are looking for.

YOU are the one who chose to put something in there that forced a player to question their moral standing. Key words: "You" "forced" "player". The player must now question his morality, or side against the party. If that's not forcing someone into action and therefore railroading, I don't know what is.

This isn't railroading. This is GMing. The whole point of GMing the sort of game that Chaochou and I are talking about is for the GM to initiate situations which force the players to make interesting choices for their PCs. (And it is the PC whose moral commitments are put into question, not the morality of the player - at least, not directly - the player's moral views may be reflected to some extent in the choices s/he makes for her/his PC.)

What would be railroading would be for the GM to force the player to resolve the dilemma in one particular way.

Oh so now GMs are in charge? I thought players were in charge? Or is your argument only that players should be in charge when it suits you and GMs should be in charge when it's important?

The way I play - I can't speak in this level of detail for Chaochou - is that the GM frames scenes, and the players choose how to resolve them. It is not a question of "importance" but of distinct roles in playing the game.

Irrelevent. The players are playing their characters in the game. The loot from the King is in the game. It doesn't matter what the players think if they're playing their characters, it's what their characters think that matters.

Well, if you won't allow the players at your table to do anything other than play their characters, you'll have trouble implementing some of the ideas that Chaochou is talking about. And you won't be able to talk frankly about the sorts of encounters and adventures your players want their PCs to engage in.

What if the lawful good player does?

But I am moved to ask, is it the player or the PC who is lawful good?

noticing what someone in your own party is doing is not "enforcing a railroad". These are what actually happens in the real world and in a game with other players.

Here is another case where distinguishing players and PCs helps. Presumably the players know the thief is attempting to pick the king's pocket (unless the player of the thief uses the time-honoured technique of passing a note). But why would the paladin PC notice? The typical 15th level thief's sleight of hand bonus well outstrips the typical 15th level paladin's perception bonus.

 

[pemerton]

And also make it clear to the players that they're riding the rails; because regardless of whether you as GM want them on planet Y or not there realistically needs to be a choice for the players/PCs as to whether (and how) they go from planet X to Y and whether they do it in a straight line.

I think we've discussed this before. My view is that aggressive scene-framing by the GM is acceptable although railroading is not, because the former does not involve invalidating the actual play that the players are trying to engage in. (Of course, it would be different if, for the players, the whole point of play had been to get to planet X. If the players think they're about to get a big payoff from the campaign, and you as GM unilaterally rob them of that, that does become a railroad. In the planet X/planet Y example, as presented, it didn't look like that.)

Of course, if you frame the planet Y scene and one of the player says "Hey, we would never have left planet X because of . . ." then you as GM may have your work cut out to avoid the mutiny! This is where talking to your players can help. But at least the conversation starts with everything out in the open. There's no illusions, and no wasting of anyone's playing time and effort.

 

[CleverNickName]

"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "

AAARGH!

Gotcha covered, Shaman.

 

[chaochou]

If any player wants to do something, then they have to run it past the DM.

No player just "does something" in the game.

Someone, must, at the end of the day, have final say on what does, or does not happen.

I'm not sure what world you live in, but I've yet to find a single D&D game, even the most incredibly sandboxy, in which the DM is not in charge.

Ahh, so we're talking about who's in charge. Right.

Which I did not. I questioned how MUCH control players or the DM should have.

Oh look. Now we're talking about degrees of control. Not what you said before though is it? The GM is in charge. No player just does something. A player must run it by the GM. How do these totally unsubstantiated assertions represent a debate about degrees of control?

Supposed the rogue has stolen from the king, by lawful good standards, the PC must return it, and turn in the rogue.

Oh so now GMs are in charge? I thought players were in charge? Or is your argument only that players should be in charge when it suits you and GMs should be in charge when it's important?

Now go back and look at what I made up. Reasons why the Paladin player might choose not to turn in the rogue which you asserted must happen.
I created some reasons why that player might not. I didn't force anything to happen in the game, nor did I even talk to the Paladin player. I simply gave reasons why your assertion of fact was no such thing. You were forcing the Paladin - 'he must'. I was disputing your assertions and undermining your use of force. At no point was I ever in charge.

You assert the Paladin will spot a pickpocket before it happens. You assert it's a death sentence. You exert as much force as possible to stop something happening that you don't want. Quote me where I exert force on any player. Please. Find the quote.

By your choices of what was in the "Kings Bag-o-Mystery", forced a players hand. Don't pass the buck off the rogue, the king could very well have simply had a pretty note in there written from the Queen about how much she loved him.
YOU are the one who chose to put something in there that forced a player to question their moral standing. Key words: "You" "forced" "player". The player must now question his morality, or side against the party. If that's not forcing someone into action and therefore railroading, I don't know what is.

Quote me where I decided what was in the bag. I gave some examples of what players might say. Quote me where I decide. Or did I say, "I ask the players what's the coolest that could be in the bag?" They could say it would be hilarious if it was empty. Or a pretty note from the queen. I've never even stated whether I would assume a power of veto, let alone decide. If there's something in there that unsettles the paladin it was the players who chose it, including the Paladin. You're accusations of force (oh the irony) suddenly look a little empty. But please, find the quote.

Your options have simply been to railroad someone else.

And where are those quotes, I wonder?

The only in-game interaction I've put forward in the whole thread is I'd ask the players what the coolest thing in the bag is.

Other than that, what I've said is: the thief does his thing. the paladin considers his course of action. I've argued that such consideration might be more difficult than your absolute 'Lawful Good must turn him in'. The players decide whether to put 50gp (or 5gp or 2cp as joke) in the bag and continue on their merry way or use the situation to create something new and cool about the world. That's it. Where's the railroad? It's done in under a minute and all I ever did was ask 'So, guys, what's in the king's pouch?'

Actually, don't bother looking for the quotes. We both know they ain't there. But why not make up yet more garbage to justify your dysfunctional and possibly acrimoneous railroad which is totally unnecessary in this situation?

Take care.

 

[Beginning of the End]

All too often they'll make plans at the end of a session to do something or go somewhere next session, so during the week I'll give some thought to what might result from this. But when the next session starts they've completely forgotten the plans they made last week and start the planning process over again, often resulting in their doing something different to their decision from the previous week and throwing such prep as I've done out the window.

There's a reason why I said "all week". I check in and make sure that's still their plan.

In another campaign the players have set up a discussion board where they continue discussing their plans between sessions. They actually take the initiative in forwarding me their "priority list" of the next 2 or 3 leads they intend to pursue.

In the West Marches campaign the players were required to tell the DM what they wanted to do in a session before they scheduled the session.

If you do have players who can't make or stick to a plan, then that technique won't be particularly effective. But there are other ways to keep you prep flexible and light.

 

[CleverNickName]

Some have suggested that railroading is what happens when the DM robs the player of a choice. I don't think this isn't necessarily true. When I remove certain feats and spells from the game, I'm not doing it because I have a specific story arc in mind. It restricts player choice, but since the story doesn't exist yet, there is nothing to railroad.

So to me, railroading is something that you do to the story, not the players. It doesn't have to have anything to do with telling a player "no, you can't do that." In fact, it can be completely invisible to even the keenest player. For example, imagine the following encounter key.

1. Main Chamber: this 20' x 20' room has heavy oak doors in the middle of the north, south, east, and west walls. Each doorway opens into a 70' long corridor that extends outward into darkness. Regardless of which corridor the party chooses to take, it will lead to Area 2, described below. If the party splits up, one of the groups (chosen randomly) arrives at Area 2 and all others arrive at a dead end.

In this example, I have given the players the illusion of a choice, when they don't necessarily have one. And they will never know unless they read my encounter key.

Another way it can be done:

Chests: In this crypt, there are twelve treasure chests, shown by the symbol ($) on the map. The location of the chests or the order in which they are opened is not important.

The first chest the party opens, regardless of its location, contains one ruby (50 gp value) and the key to Room #3.

The second chest opened will be boobytrapped with a poison dart, and contains a bag of sand.

The third chest the party opens contains...etc, etc.

Again, the players think they have a choice, but they really don't. I have already decided the results of their exploration to fit my story. And like any good railroad engineer, I've written it so that the players will never know. Choice is unaffected, at least from the perspective of the player.

Not that I would ever do this to my players. I'm just saying, it can be done. And it can be done in such a way that nobody would ever know. But anyway, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to see it, was it scripted?

The example I gave about the thief wanting to pick the pocket of the king (and me putting the kabosh on it) made the player angry, and that's not cool. I was trying to keep the game on track...but I don't think that is a bad thing. I think it's part of the DM's job, actually.

I guess I could have allowed it but make it unimportant, as some have suggested. For example, I could have just rolled a die flippiantly behind the screen, ignored the result, announced that his attempt was successful, and give him the king's grocery list or something equally worthless. He would have gotten 20 seconds of everyone's attention, everyone else would have rolled their eyes, and we would have continued on with the story at hand.

But if I were the player, I think that would have made me even more angry. I'd rather be told "no" than be placated.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I disagree. This has everything to do with railroading. Again, the litmus test (to me) is: Did the dm dictate player action? In this case, the answer is yes. So yes, it's a railroad.

I disagree. What the DM did here was deny an action not dictate one. If a player wanted to attack an orc and there are no orcs in the combat area would you call not letting the character attack orcs railroading as well?

 

[Hussar]

My basic issue with sandboxing is generally pacing. Which, to me, is exactly what the Thief VS the King example represents. It's not that stealing from the king is bad or good, it's that it can very, very quickly grind the game to a complete standstill while we attempt to resolve what happened.

Add to that the possibility that it can take considerable time to resolve and that only one player at the table actually cares, and you can have a very, very boring session. Not that you necessarily will. It might be a great one. But, IME, more often than not it's going to be a couple of hours of wanking about until it gets resolved one way or another.

And this can be the issue with sandbox campaigns. Because you've got competing interests at the table, particularly if you have one player who simply cannot repress impulses, you can possibly result in a situation that Ken Hite talks about with stagnant games. You wind up with the Seinfeld version of a campaign - it's a campaign about nothing! - because the players can never come together long enough to actually accomplish anything.

Note, I'm not saying this is a likely outcome. In the right group, it's fine and will likely not happen. And, I wonder if having stable groups where the players know each other very well has any relationship to how well people find sandboxes work.

In newer groups, where the players don't know each other that well, I've seen this go so horribly, horribly wrong.

The one good thing about railroads is that the pacing can be stepped up far higher. In a railroad, you trade player freedom for pace. Sure, you can't choose to do X, Y or Z, but, you will progress through things much faster, so, it's not boring.

Again, this isn't necessarily the only result. Railroads can go horribly, horribly wrong as well.

But, at the end of the day, suiting the campaign style to the group will result in a much better game all around. For some groups, sacrificing pace for choice is worth it. For others, not so much. It's all about getting what you want.

 

[Beginning of the End]

EDIT: Not worth it.