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

[Katana_Geldar]

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule on how to railroad light, as it's up to each DM to decide how well their players are of carrying the plot forward...and whether there should be a plot at all.

I've had a very interesting time running the same module for two different groups. It's 4e Tomb of Horrors superadventure, relatively plot-light (at least at the beginning) so it means I can do what I like with getting the players well onto to wagon.

I have found though, that the second group (online, the other one is real time), is a lot more spontaneous and I have to improv more than with my real-time group, though I have to prod them quite a bit more to keep them moving along to where the action is going to be.
One of the great things about the module, like Gary's original, is that locations were rather non-specific, all you had to worry about was what plane you were on and that is it. And this means I can do a Shrodringer's Gun with the locations: the dungeon just happens to be where I need it to be for the players to find it.
They've missed a few plot hooks, and I've had to provide them with more obvious ones, but since they are more inclined to talk to NPCs than the first group I took through the module I've had to improv a lot.

When I feel like railroading, I always think of Shrodringer's Gun and that usually kills the temptation. Ask yourself "How important is it that X happens?"

Do the players have to talk to the king to get the quest? Does the King have to be in a certain place in order to give the players the quest? As long as you keep your object firmly in mind, you won't railroad...much.

I see story in an RPG more like stepping stones, there are a few options and alternative routes but you all end up in the same place...unless you are wiling to put your ending in the hands of your players. Something I have not done, yet.

 

[pemerton]

A question - what do people in this thread make of the following quote from Paul Czege?

Let me say that I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive:

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).​

I think it very effectively exposes, as Ron points out above, that although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. More often than not, the PC's have been geographically separate from each other in the game world. So I go around the room, taking a turn with each player, framing a scene and playing it out. I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.

How does it feel? I suspect it feels like being a guest on a fast-paced political roundtable television program. I think the players probably love it for the adrenaline, but sometimes can't help but breathe a calming sigh when I say "cut."​

When I read this, I see an account of how an RPG can be run with very active GMing, in a way that will generate a story that is engaging for the players and GM, but without railroading. (Although in my game I would say that the firehose is more of a garden hose - my game is a bit more relaxed than what Czege describes. And we also have more traditional party play.)

Other thoughts?

 

[Janx]

When I feel like railroading, I always think of Shrodringer's Gun and that usually kills the temptation. Ask yourself "How important is it that X happens?"

Do the players have to talk to the king to get the quest? Does the King have to be in a certain place in order to give the players the quest? As long as you keep your object firmly in mind, you won't railroad...much.

I see story in an RPG more like stepping stones, there are a few options and alternative routes but you all end up in the same place...unless you are wiling to put your ending in the hands of your players. Something I have not done, yet.

I like the shrodringer's gun term.

Siince it's a quantum physics reference, the other aspect of quantum physics applies. You tend to find what you're looking for.

Thus, if the players are looking for the next clue, the next dungeon, low and behold there it is. Which happens to be the one you've prepared for the night.

The very important converse, is that if the players are not only not looking, but avoiding a dungeon, then you don't put them anywhere near a dungeon.

Failure to obey this converse rule, is railroading in all definitions I can see.

 

[Hussar]

It's a problem, but I think the connotation itself is problematic. I've seen people use "plot" to describe what are fully scripted adventures, with only one way in and one way out -- or worse, to describe their expectations that whenever someone else uses the term "plot", that a tight script is what the speaker means. That's why I'd personally like to see "script" used when we're talking about something that isn't improv.

Really, it's a similar problem to what Hussar describes when he wishes for a non-perjorative term for "railroad" -- and goes on to say "one that doesn't imply that the players are having fun." Railroading shouldn't imply that the players aren't having fun -- assuming that because it's a railroad, the players aren't enjoying themselves, is basically projection. Now, it's a technique that has a high chance of creating sessions that players don't enjoy. But it doesn't guarantee it. I feel there's a similar level of projection that has made the word "plot" a nastier four-letter word than it deserves.

I was giving this a bit of thought and I think I realize why it gets so hard to discuss this sometimes.

We tend to frame the discussion in terms of railroad at one end of the spectrum and sandbox at the other. On the surface, that seems pretty logical. After all, in a railroad you have no meaningful choices and in a sandbox, you have lots.

The problem comes in when the connotations are added. Pawsplay illustrates this perfectly. He's hardly alone in saying that railroaded games are bad. And, really, if you just asked most DM's, "Hey, is your game a railroad?" most would probably say no, simply because railroad has such negative connotations.

But, take that a step further. if Railroad=bad game, and the opposite of Railroad is Sandbox, then doesn't it follow that Sandbox=Good Game? I think that's the attitude that somes off sometimes. Anyone who has story or plotsy type games, theme park games if you like, or Adventure Path style games, are not sandbox games, and thus, are not good games.

And it can be taken a step further. After all, a good DM won't run a bad game, obviously, therefore, good DM's run Sandbox games.

Now, I'm not saying that this is true. But, there's a current of that in a lot of these discussions. Call a DM a Railroading DM and see what happens. Call him a Sandbox DM and he smiles and thanks you.

I really don't think you can decouple the concept of Railroad from the negative connotations. At least not easily.

In my mind, the discussion should be framed as Linear vs Sandbox. A Linear campaign will follow a fairly well defined path forward. That path is defined by the DM at the outset of the game. Adventure Paths are linear, module A leads to B leads to C. Within each adventure, you might have a great deal of freedom, but, you are still going to progress through a pre-developed storyline.

I guess the String of Pearls campaign construct illustrates this well as well.

Now, at least in my mind, there isn't the negative connotations. You can be a great DM and run a Linear Campaign or a Sandbox campaign. Both have strong and weak points and depending on your personal tastes, you can prefer one or the other. Or both. I'm pretty easy and don't mind swinging from both sides of the plate.

Hus "Currently rebuilding the World's Largest Dungeon" sar.

 

[pawsplay]

Building on what Hussar said, Sandbox and Linear are a polarity.

Railroads are not really on that spectrum; they are a type of game with several characteristics, including fairly high linearality but with degeneration. If you take a railroad game and revere the linear polarity you get The GM Staring at the Players Who Do Nothing While the GM Does Nothing. To actually get a good game, you actually need to reverse a number of other factors, and you do not need to reverse linearlity.

Railroad games are:
- High linear premise, but with dysfunctional behavior and low incentives for the players to participate
- Low simulation/world of imagination/verisimilitude but also low in meta resolution of player goals
- Degenerate in the area of illusion, neither illusory nor realistical, but lacking imaginary surface entirely

And so forth. It's a series of Do Not Computes, as opposed to a healthy game, which have a number of traits that could go either direction
- linear vs. sandbox
- realistical versus illusory
- dramaturgical versus tactical

and so forth

 

[pawsplay]

There is a long and interesting thread in which I observed several qualities of sandbox play. My summary post:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/269921-what-makes-sandbox-14.html#post5044445

My list so far:
- The primary meta-game goal is discovery/exploration, which subordinates the meta-game goals of plot and cohesion
- The game is high on GM control of background, but low on GM control of events. In terms of trajectories, they remain constant until affected by the PCs, and the secondary effects of the PCs' actions.
- The environment is rich in things to do, rather than one thing being obviously more interesting than other choices.
- Encounters and events are emergent rather than programmatic.
- When the players affect the environment, the GM presents logical consequences from a realistical standpoint, rather than a poetic viewpoint.

Tweaking any one of those items would change the game. For instance, if the players defined the world collaboratively and asked the GM to "tell them a story" with them as the characters, you would have what White wolf calls a storytelling style but which I might more specifically call an existentialist-storytelling style. In poetic terms, it resembles the storytelling style of someone telling a bedtime story... meaning is intended, but the audience presents the situation and no particular end to the story is mandated.

Conversely, if it has most of the sandbox elements, but there is really only one interesting thing to do, it looks like the classic delve/quest style.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

Consider for a moment that I'm running a historical game. That means that I know, with varying degrees of detail, the fate of of quite a few of the npcs.

Frex, I know that the comte de Soissons, a prince of royal blood, will die at the very moment his rebellion against the king achieves a crushing victory over a French army, that he will either kill himself by accidentally discharging his pistol into his face while raising the visor of his helmet (ever seen that one on a critical fumble table?!) or he will be shot by an assassin hired by Cardinal Richelieu from among his own staff officers as they stand overlooking the battlefield. (History is unclear as to which is true, by the way.)

I know this will happen on 6 July 1641, at the battle of La Marfée - unless the adventurers change history by their actions.

I know similar information about some of my fictional npcs as well. Frex, the marquis de Saint-Méran, a loyal creature of the duc de Guise, will follow the duke into exile in Italy in 1631 rather than submit to Cardinal Richelieu - again, unless the actions of the adventurers change history (in this case the future-history of the campaign world).

I have no idea if the fate of either of these characters will be affected by the adventurers. They could become allies or enemies of the adventurers, or they may never cross each others' paths, or the adventurers' actions could indirectly affect either one in some way. (Maybe an adventurer kills one of them over a horse . . .)

Each of these npcs is a part of the living setting that exists independently of the adventurers, until or unless their paths cross one another, directly or indirectly, in the course of actual play.

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.

I agree, but when I decide 'what happens next,' I'm guided by what makes sense in the context of the situation, not what makes for a 'better story' or averts a tpk.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

5a.) Equally acceptable options include getting drunk in a tavern as a prelude to conquering the world, or conquering the world then getting drunk in a tavern. But nothing else.

8.) Dragonlance was a better novel series than a module series.

8a.) And it was a sucktastic novel series.

 

[Lanefan]

... The PCs are still horse thieves ... That's a horse of a different color ...

Maybe so, but those PCs are still gonna steal that horse if they can!

Lan-"and if it's a donkeyhorse, even better"-efan

 

[Nagol]

There is a long and interesting thread in which I observed several qualities of sandbox play. My summary post:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/269921-what-makes-sandbox-14.html#post5044445

The list is pretty good save for the first element -- focus on discovery versus plot/cohesion is not a necessary condition.

When I ran a superheroic CHAMPIONS campaigns the focus was strongly NOT discovery, but it was still a sandbox according to the rest of the metrics. The players likened the cmapigns to massive soap operas in that relationships and context became incredibly important which I think illustrates a focus on plot/cohesion.