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

[pawsplay]

I"Railroading" refers to the practice of using illusionism to achieve particularly desirable plot, for example, insuring the success of the players when failure would not be deemed desirable or in insuring the failure of the players (and hense the success of 'the plot' in both senses of the word) when failure is not deemed dramatically desirable or insuring that a series of events occurs in what is deemed a dramaticly desirable order or simply for more pragmatic reasons such as insuring that the majority of the time the players stay somewhere in the area the DM has had time to sufficiently prepare and detail.

I'm going to argue exactly the opposite. Illusionism is usually characterized as the illusion of choice. In a railroaded game, there really isn't any sense that the players have a choice about what will happen. They are spectators and subjects. Further, if they refuse to comply with the railroading attempt, it is more likely nothing will happen rather than something. The railroading GM versus the recalcitrant players is in fact a recipe for aimless actions, if not escalation and a frustration-induced TPK.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm going to argue exactly the opposite. Illusionism is usually characterized as the illusion of choice. In a railroaded game, there really isn't any sense that the players have a choice about what will happen.

Illusions are hard to maintain. Naturally, so long as the players aren't aware that they are on rails, they are unlikely to complain about it. When the illusion breaks down is when the problem appears to begin. I'd like to argue that the problem is the illusion itself.

I've said elsewhere that you really can't ever know in general if you are on a railroad until you try to get off. Sure, there are DMs out there that tell you what you do and don't even ask for input, but even then it can be some time before players realize that they are really on rails. Players will probably at first assume that they are on some sort of narrow-broad-narrow ride, and it may be some time before they realize that they aren't merely in transit, but locked in.

They are spectators and subjects. Further, if they refuse to comply with the railroading attempt, it is more likely nothing will happen rather than something. The railroading GM versus the recalcitrant players is in fact a recipe for aimless actions, if not escalation and a frustration-induced TPK.

How does that contrast with what I said?

I think I'm going to have to find the time to write on this at more length. People are talking about this in really vague terms, and I think something like an Aristotelian definition might actually clear things up a bit. Our one example we've beat on is limiting people's understanding I think.

 

[pawsplay]

Illusions are hard to maintain. Naturally, so long as the players aren't aware that they are on rails, they are unlikely to complain about it. When the illusion breaks down is when the problem appears to begin. I'd like to argue that the problem is the illusion itself.

If the players never step off the rails, that is an assumption, not an illusion. An illusion should have a plausible chance of fooling the mind and senses. Letting people do what they will do, and think what they will think, is hardly an artful illusion, even if they are content to follow the GM's breadcrumbs, and mistakenly imagine themselves as authors of their characters' destinies.

 

[Remathilis]

So, in summation of an excellent thread...

1.) Railroading is a playstyle that is unique but not diametrically opposed to sandboxing or rowboating.
2.) It can be good, bad, or neutral, depending on the views of the DM & PCs.
3.) The rational result of an action (IE pickpocketing the king) isn't a railroad, except for when it is.
4.) Illusionism is the term for covering your rails with sand and saying you're going to the beach.
5.) If given nothing to do, PCs will either try to conquer the world or get drunk at a tavern. There is no in-between.
6.) Background material is ok if it stays in the background.
7.) The definition of what "railroad" and "sandbox" is are as fluid and everchanging as one of Gygax's dungeons.
8.) Dragonlance was a better novel series than a module series.
9.) One way or another, you're going to Norworld dammit!
10.) Railroading is terrible and constitutes badwrongfun. Except when it doesn't.

 

[Barastrondo]

Simply because the players allow themselves to be entertained doesn't let the GM off the hook. Certainly, i would not say railroading guarantees no one has fun, and I said so in a previous post. But it is a dysfunctional process.

I disagree. At its worst, it can be... but so too is a rowboat campaign. But the reason that I think that people get so irritated at the mention of railroading, even in games they don't participate and where every involved party is having fun, is that railroading does not actively prepare a group to play in a rail-less gaming group. That is not the same thing as dysfunctional.

The games I've seen, and seen discussed, where railroading is not just acceptable but preferable are frequently ones where there may be external stresses that make RPG night less attractive when it's about high-stakes choices at every turn. Some groups want to go on the theme park. They want to ride the rides, and for them time not spent on the rails is essentially "standing in line." Again, this doesn't prepare the players to participate in the more demanding kind of game that probably most of us here prefer. But what's often overlooked is that a more demanding game is not a plus to those players. And at that point, what anyone who isn't involved in their game thinks is pretty immaterial.

Some of the talk seems to refer to railroading as a technique, which I don't think fits the parameters of discussion. Railroading is a style, which includes techniques such as abandoning illusionism, narrative fiat, withholding in-game knowledge, removing meanginful choices, and so forth. I don't think a "little bit" of railroading is ever good, though it may not be bad. I think if you want to run a successful game, artful illusionism, narrative flexibility, imaginative play, and meanginful choices are good things.

I'm agreed that all the techniques you describe are valuable tools for any GM's arsenal, but I believe that taking your players' desires into account trumps all that stuff. If they want an on-the-rails ride from scene to scene, then spending time trying to get them to abandon that mode of thought and start jumping the rails is arguably (and I'll argue it) pretty counter-productive to the game a good one for them.

If you don't think "railroading" is a four-letter word, maybe you haven't really seen it.

And the counterpoint is that if you don't think it can be anything but badwrongfun, maybe you haven't really met any gamers who've looked at multiple models of play but prefer to ride the rails.

 

[Starfox]

No, a railroad is neither non-invasive nor non-intrusive.

QUOTE=Celebrim (but not in reference to his posts, just stealing his wording): The irony in that statement is so sharp that it makes me want to wince rather than make fun of you.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm agreed that all the techniques you describe are valuable tools for any GM's arsenal, but I believe that taking your players' desires into account trumps all that stuff. If they want an on-the-rails ride from scene to scene, then spending time trying to get them to abandon that mode of thought and start jumping the rails is arguably (and I'll argue it) pretty counter-productive to the game a good one for them.

The techniques I mentioned do not depend on the player's willingness or desire to "jump the rails." Even if the players amicably follow what looks like the obvious path, they still benefit from being afforded the respect of real choices, attempts to maintain the appearance of continuity in the game world, being allowed to make reasonable attempts to solve challenges, etc.

And the counterpoint is that if you don't think it can be anything but badwrongfun, maybe you haven't really met any gamers who've looked at multiple models of play but prefer to ride the rails.

I just don't agree that a successful "theme park" game and a railroad have the same characteristics. I would not call a game a "railroad" simply based on the initial scenario, even if the GM plans on funneling events toward a certain goal. Railroading refers to how the game functions in play. Railroading is coercive. A game that affords the players respect and provides fun, however carefully orchestrated, is not coercive. Saying, "X happens in Act III" may be wishful thinking, but there is nothing badwrongfun about aiming for that outcome, if you think it would be fun. But if your players don't like X, and they have a reasonable chance to avert it, what happens when they do Y will tell you whether you are running a railroad.

I am fluent with many models of play. I am also familiar with a genre of experience that I would not wish on anyone. I am making a distinction between badwrongfun (i.e other styles of play which may afford more or less liberty in realistic player choices) and what is strictly unfun. What Hite calls getting somewhere does not fit my definition of a railroad. I look at the comments cited in the OP as a volley in an ongoing dialectic between freedom and thematics, and as with much of partisan rhetoric, the casualty is honest and understanding communication. Railroading has NOTHING to do with getting somewhere o accomplishing something, nor does accomplishing something mean the same thing to everyone. In a discussion of railroading (I don't know the exact context, but as I understand the situation) Hite chose to make that comment, choosing to make a rhetorical point about GM control over player freedom, rather than acknowledging a dysfunctional scenario. Hite's comment is a glib defense of what is sometimes inaccurately called railroading by people who want to stretch the definition. It was a defensive comment, and ironically enough, laden with negative judgment against people who are less concerned about "accomplishing something" (whatever that means) and more with other rewards of their chosen playstyle.

My take: "You are having badwrongfun" -> "No, YOU are having badwrongfun."

In practice, both freeform styles and more tightly controlled, programmatic scenarios are BOTH aimed at accomplishing something.

 

[pawsplay]

Breaking this down again from the beginning.

I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."

Railroading *is* a pejorative term for a game in which the group accomplishes something, but not I think the standard usage, and certainly it is not just that. Railroading refers also to a dysfunctional play style in which the GM basically thwards the PCs intentions because of some meta-goal of the GM; I believe this is the most standard, most clear, and generally most consistent definition of the concept. Further the group is not "actually" accomplishing something, they are simply accomplishing something, and play in which GM guidance propels events are not barred from "actually" accomplishing something. That "actually" is a hostile zing at a group who have not, as a whole, caused offense. People are free to "actually" accomplish things in their own preferred style.

This was in reference to a popular investigative RPG in which the GM is required to emplace solid, definable "core clues" in each and every scene, one that has on occasion been criticized for essentially institutionalizing railroading.

That doesn't sound like railroading. There are clues, the PCs discover them, the players decide on a course of action.

Is this a cop-out? I personally think that the PCs should be given all the freedom in the world to rund own blind alleys and chase red herrings; indeed, interesting roleplaying situations can pop up when this happens and it can end up leading to more interesting RPG experiences than the GM had originally intended.

It is not a cop-out, but simply a narrow-minded view of what can be "accomplished."

On the other hand, are GMs missing out on something by not railroading? Is all this "the PCs must be free!" chatter robbing us of our right to tell a good story?

There is no "right" to tell a good story. Certainly there is no "right" to railroad, which is not a good story. Storytelling is fundamentally different in RPGs than in poetic media, and the GM must be prepared for a variety of responses, even with the same group and in similar scenarios.

Imagine Return of the Jedi and Revenge of the Sith, for a moment, as RPG scenarios, in RotJ Luke rejects the Dark Side, whereas in RotS, Anakin embraces it. In a Star Wars RPG, both outcomes are possible. In a railroaded game, the GM has already presumed to make Luke or Anakin's choice, although he does not have the ability to actually force that choice. The player can always refuse to act in one fashion or the other, and the GM can only accept that choice, or not ask the player to choose. A railroaded game contains dysfunction in that the GM does not acknowledge this fundamental truth.

 

[Janx]

Actually, it is worlds apart. Making decisions under duress is making decisions, and indeed, is participating in the struggle the character would be experiencing. That is essentially what most RPGs are: a series of decisions made under duress.

I think you're both right on this.

HOW the DM tells the PC that a proposed action is not a good idea matters. In either event, yes the DM is attempting to manipulate the PC.

Advising him of the POSSIBLE consequences in general terms seems to be the fairest. As in "if you attempt to steal that horse, you may be marked as an outlaw and if caught the penalty could be death"

its factual, and in no way tells the player what to do. The other wordings celebrim used had language that lead the player, which seems wrong to me.

In any case, as pawplay suggests, the PCs are supposed to be under duress for their most important decisions. That's how you make them important. It's the conflict. Sitting in a tavern, discussing the merits of the idea of taking a horse from a random stranger is hardly any duress at all.

Though the odd thought is, if I was going to take a horse, I'd kill the witness. Problem solved...

 

[Janx]

taking a different stab at the stranger and the horse, since I seem to have failed at the last.

celebrims got a stranger on a horse. The PCs meet him on the road. A PC decides to take the horse. Celebrim knows that this stranger is going to be important later for 2 different things, and that if the PC takes the horse, its going to go badly for the PCs.

Assuming I got the gist of his tale correct, I think the "right" handling varies on if your running a sandbox or a story.

In a sandbox, I'm not sure it's right to know so much about this guy's future. I suspect in Shaman's game, he'd only know what this guy will do (help the PCs and get murdered) when it comes closer to being handy to have this guy help and get murdered.

Thus, in a sandbox (and this is not an informed opinion) it seems to me that you would stick to the facts that this guy's name is Joe the Plumber and he lives in Plumbsville and knows the butcher. But whether he'd act to help the PCs later, or get murdered is information you wouldn't know until some time later.

This is much as the same way with the pickpocketed King. As a DM, you may have no clue what's in his pocket, or that a PC would even try to pick-pocket him, in what you started as a social encounter. So when the attempt is made, you've got to decide what happens next, and what will be the consequence of the attempt (let alone the DC of the attempt itself).

I think it is part of the DM's job to make that determination of the nature and scope of the outcome of that pick-pocket attempt. Just as it is to do so with the horse theivery. Unless you've got some paper that says "on any attempt to rob an NPC, this is what happens" then you're winging it.

If you're winging it, you've an obligation to make what happens next be both plausible and fair. But there's still a lot of room for variance in outcomes.

For a GM running a published adventure and not a sandbox, Choosing less disastrous outcomes may be acceptable if it means helping the players keep running the adventure that they still want to play.

I'm OK with the GM moving things around to support what the players goals are.

I'm not OK with the GM thwarting the PCs actions to ensure they end up in situation X

So in Celebrim's campaign, the PC's story was " we were going to solve this problerm PC1 had, decided we needed horses so we jacked a guy's horse. He ratted us out, and we ended up dodging the law in the woods, like Robin Hood or something. it was awesome"

In my campaign, the PCs story was "We were going to solve this problem PC1 had, decided we needed horses so we jacked a guy's horse. Got into some trouble over it, but managed to dodge the fuzz long enough for PC1 to find what he needed and failed to solve his problem in an epic fight, because the fuzz showed up in the middle of it. it was awesome"

As long as both games end with "it was awesome", I'm OK with that. And in my game, it's not like I'm going to ignore the horse-jacking. It'll be a factor in the next session, too. In the current session, I make it a complication to their goal. I just don't let it totally kill the notes I have for stuff the PCs find on their way to solve PC1's problem.

In the King's scenario, I've only got a shuffling problem if the thief fails. Otherwise, he gets something from the pocket, and the party goes to Norwold. Heck, I've got more problems if they choose to decline the offer to go to Norwold, which could be a reasonable chance, depending on the party.

That's where the chances of railroading (as in really bad DM behavior) could kick in, trying to get them to go to Norwold.

As a GM, I would only present the Norwold trip if I could make sure it was really enticing to the players and I'm pretty sure the answer would be yes.