Sandbox gaming

[Mark CMG]

Dungeons make good settings for D&D because they limit options, and "force narrative" to a choice between room A and room B.

IMO walls do railroad PCs passively, and implicitly. Just because it's not an active channelling through hamhanded DMing doesn't make it a way to implicitly limit player choice. And that's not a bad thing IMO. I think, once again, people's definitions of railroading and sandboxes are too narrow, and their associations with which is good and which bad a bit too simplistic.

I think, once again, that this is attempting to broaden a definition beyond the boundaries of comprehensibility.

Yup. A dungeon does nothing in and of itself. It is the DM/GM/Referee/Facilitator that either allows for options or conducts a forced narrative. There are megadungeons with seemingly near-endless possibilities and crypts with what appear to be few choices, and both can seem as a railroad if the person running the game decides to allow only one real path through them. Neither scenario is limited by place, only by the narrative presented.

 

[chaochou]

IMO walls do railroad PCs passively, and implicitly.

I think people's definitions of railroading and sandboxes are too narrow, and their associations with which is good and which bad a bit too simplistic.

I don't agree with the first sentence. I agree with the second.

Railroading, IMO, is controlling a PC in a way the player of that character objects to. Now I've never seen a player object to the placement of a wall,
so I've yet to encounter a situation where a player felt railroaded by one.

I don't think anyone else can tell you that you're being railroaded. Only you can decide if you're happy with the options available to your character.

The fact that railroading is often seen as a matter of technique has lead to certain play being unfairly stigmatised. I think it's true that certain games carry a greater risk of railroading (conflict over choice). But if it never comes up at the table, it's a non-issue.

 

[Celebrim]

Railroading, IMO, is controlling a PC in a way the player of that character objects to.

I think that that is accurate enough for most purposes.

But I'd be inclined though to believe that railroading is railroading even if the player doesn't notice it or object to it. Indeed, I think railroading is railroading even when a player consents to get on the train.

Railroading is a technique, or set of techniques, designed to let the DM take control over the narrative away from the players. Just because the PC's don't realize that they've lost narrative authority, or because the players are a willing audience for the DMs storytelling doesn't mean that it isn't railroading. It just means that the DM has gotten away with it. It's important to note that for many tables, it's assumed and prefered that the DM does take control over the narrative and if the DM fails to do so the players will see this as failure on his part. So, IMO, every DM needs to be able to drive a train as well as he builds a sandbox, and vica versa.

Now I've never seen a player object to the placement of a wall, so I've yet to encounter a situation where a player felt railroaded by one.

I think that it would go too far to say that any wall constitutes railroading. A classic megadungeon can constitute a kind of sandbox, albiet one with a somewhat more limited setting, and walls in and of themselves can be simple artifacts of simulation with no explicit narrative purpose. Without narrative purpose, a wall can't be used to hijack and control the narative and thus can't be used to railroad.

But I have very much seen players object to the placement of a wall, and the placement of a wall is definately one of the primary techniques of railroading. If a DM places walls to create a Tiny World, chances are he's railroading. Moving walls and one way doors are almost always - outside of Gygaxian megadungeons - signs of railroading.

The easist way I can think of to demonstrate this is the text of DL1: Dragons of Despair, which is one of the most famous railroads in D&D, and it heavily relies on Tiny World and Endurium Walls to control the narrative while giving the semblence of an outdoor environment. If you were to draw a flow chart of the outdoor map that accompanies the module you'd find that the result map looked nothing like an outdoor map. The map is outlined with walls in the form of impassable mountains. Passes out are blocked by unblinking, undecievable, unsleeping gaurds. The map you drew that reflected the real map would be covered with one way doors, and moving walls in the form of invincible dragon armies close in on the characters from every side. A great many EnWorlder's have expressed displeasure with the module walls, particularly the ones that act like walls or involve walls where we would not expect them to be.

I don't think anyone else can tell you that you're being railroaded. Only you can decide if you're happy with the options available to your character.

I've said before that with a skilled DM its usually impossible to tell if you are being railroaded until you try to get off. Of course, a truly skilled DM who was railroading you in the first place will probably let you off and then immediately put you on a second railroad. Most players though are pretty content to ride the rails. Some players are self-aware enough to know that their ideal game involves a lot of railroading, and would be disappointed if easily accessible train stations aren't provided for their enjoyment. Railroading only gets to be a problem when the players want to get off and do everything to signal that they want a change of narrative, and the DM won't allow it. That's when the players start yelling about 'Railroad'.

But if it never comes up at the table, it's a non-issue.

It's an issue if it doesn't come up only I think to the extent that it is better for a DM to be aware of what he is doing and conscious of why he is doing it and what his alternatives are so that he has some real control over his game and his style. That way, when a problem comes up at the table whether the players object that they are on a railroad or object that they are in a rowboat, it won't be a matter of, "My way is the only way.", because the DM has more than one tool in his toolset.

 

[chaochou]

It's an issue if it doesn't come up only I think to the extent that it is better for a DM to be aware of what he is doing and conscious of why he is doing it and what his alternatives are so that he has some real control over his game and his style.

I completely agree that an awareness of the techniques a DM is using and risks associated with them are valuable. I enjoyed your thread on the topic.

Largely, I don't think we're in disagreement here. The only one I see is illustrated here:

Railroading is a technique, or set of techniques, designed to let the DM take control over the narrative away from the players...

...That's when the players start yelling about 'Railroad'.

This is where I see a potential problem. On one hand 'railroad' is being used to describe a technique (or set of) and on the other it is being used to describe a negative play experience.

That means when someone running a game using those techniques with no problems asks 'Am I railroading?' the answer is both yes and no.

The danger is that technique and bad experience become synonymous, such that people using those techniques but running a game which is fun for all concerned can feel their play style is being criticised by association.

I say it's a danger, not a foregone conclusion. It's quite possible to keep the two separate and to use the term as you choose to. But I've also seen 'You're playing a railroad game' used, or interpreted, as some kind of criticism, when the game may itself be great for those players.

I prefer to use railroad solely for 'conflict over limited choice' to keep any association of 'conflict' or 'problem' separate from games which may well be brilliant. I find the distinction valuable. As always ymmv.

Oh, and apologies for the sarciness before. It was late here, I was tired. One of them things.

 

[gamerprinter]

As with any GM technique, railroading like anything else can be done well, and such that the players don't even notice they are being railroaded - the story is moving forward, the players are participating and may even think they are in control.

So because the players don't notice they are being railroaded - are you still railroading? Of course you are - its not a maybe 'yes' or 'no' answer, its a definite yes. Railroading doesn't have to be obvious to exist or to work.

As with anything, definitions are the hang-up. Just because railroading seems like a bad thing, it does't have to be to be still done well. And a game doesn't have to be a complete railroad. I say mix and match - use some combined narrative action, use some sandbox and use some subtle railroading as necessary to get the story moving forward, the players involved. In the end they are just story telling techniques, tools for the GM.

GP

 

[invokethehojo]

Good question. Not sure I have a great answer because I haven't actually run a campaign like that, but a few thoughts:

(1) I'm not sure the "here's a list of cases for you to choose from" is actually a great way to prep for a campaign because the format is pretty much guaranteed to waste prep (whatever cases they don't pursue).

I agree, I think the right way to go about something like this is to start the campaign with an adventure that is a railroad, that sets the PC's against barksdale's crew. This would be short, just something to give them a reason to hate the guys. A fellow detective and friend is found dead, after some investigation it looks like Barksdale's crew did it.

For the rest of the adventure, I think the way to do the sandbox is to simply prep Barksdale's crew, turf and operations in a very detailed manner. Design the gang from the ground up as it's own little ecosystem. From there the PC's can go after then in any way they choose. As long as your comfortable with the premise, and you have that prep work done, you should be able to handle just about anything. At the end of each session ask the guys what they are thinking of doing next session just so you don't get caught off gaurd.

 

[Raven Crowking]

IMHO, it is only a railroad if the GM usurps player control over elements the player should be in control of (esp. character actions).

IOW, if the players go along with the GM's plotline because they want to, it is not a railroad. After all, the players could also choose not to go along. Player choice is still validated.

Linear =/= railroad in the same way that sandbox =/= rowboat.

In both models, it is the lack of choice which makes a potentially good game (linear or sandbox) into a bad game (railroad = players not actually allowed to choose; rowboat = players lack necessary context for choice).

Trying to "win back" the term railroad to mean any linear model is like trying to "win" rowboat to mean any sandbox.

IMHO, at least.


RC

 

[Celebrim]

This is where I see a potential problem. On one hand 'railroad' is being used to describe a technique (or set of) and on the other it is being used to describe a negative play experience.

If you'll recall from that thread you say you liked (thanks), one of the first things I did was point out that the term 'Railroad' was commonly used to mean two different things.

This is a natural result of the subjective experience of 'railroading'. We have to refer to both the objective act of 'railroading' and the subjective experience of it. Because there can be two different experiences of the act of 'railroading', it is not enough to say 'That is a railroad.' Objectively describing something doesn't capture the full meaning. We have to say, "That is a railroad and the negative experience of being railroaded has become for me the most salient feature of the game experience." Or it didn't. Of course, people don't naturally use language in that way, so we can hardly expect that sort of precision in their conversation.

The difficulty here is when people confuse the objective and subjective of railroading. They say, "That is a railroad." and start to argue over the question of, "Is that a railroad?", as if there was a 1 to 1 correspondance between things that are objectively railroads and things that are subjectively experienced as railroads. If they didn't experience A as a railroad, but experienced B as a railroad they'll argue, "A is a railroad and B is not.", even if objectively speaking A and B are the same technique. If you point that out, then they'll say, "B can't be a railroad because that would mean B is bad, and it clearly isn't.", which is missing the point but missing it in ways that are entirely predictable given the limitations of language.

That means when someone running a game using those techniques with no problems asks 'Am I railroading?' the answer is both yes and no.

Well, yes, yes it does. That doesn't represent a big problem for me, as I'm perfectly happy to have questions that are answerable both 'yes' and 'no' - for example, "Do humans have free will?" Alot of the questions people argue about most vociferously IMO turn out to be questions where the right answer is both, "Yes" and "No". I can't give you a lot of examples because of board rules, but probably some will come to mind if you think about it. However, since everyone "knows" (common sense) that questions are not supposed to be answered both "yes" and "no", those sorts of questions give most people (understandably) lots of difficulty. The trick is to work out what the question really means, as often a question has multiple levels of meaning.

The danger is that technique and bad experience become synonymous, such that people using those techniques but running a game which is fun for all concerned can feel their play style is being criticised by association.

We are already there. People already are using the words in different ways, often even changing the meaning that they are employing from sentense to sentense without realizing it. The description I'm giving is precisely to try to get people to clarify their thinking by giving less fuzzy definitions so that people can see what they are actually thinking, and better yet, what the people who don't agree with them are actually thinking.

I prefer to use railroad solely for 'conflict over limited choice' to keep any association of 'conflict' or 'problem' separate from games which may well be brilliant.

While you may prefer that, in its natural usage that isn't always what it means. Two different people can experience the same game run the same way as a railroad or not depending on their preferences. The person who experiences it as a railroad must in fairness be assumed to have a reason for that experience. Those two different people when they use the term railroad will naturally use it in different ways, and they'll talk right passed each other if they don't first understand the different ways it is being used.

I find the distinction valuable. As always ymmv.

I'm a computer programmer with a professional curiousity in natural language. It would be great if natural language didn't hang the same pointer to an object on multiple different objects and expect people to work out from the ambigious pointer what idea was being pointed at. But it doesn't work that way. The symbol table for a conversation is filled with ambiguities.

Oh, and apologies for the sarciness before. It was late here, I was tired. One of them things.

Forgiven before asked. I'm glad the red letters didn't come out. I'm abrasive as all heck at times, but I tend to find that with most people - like most children or siblings - can work out their differences without parental intervention. If I didn't think we could, I wouldn't have bothered posting anything.

 

[Celebrim]

IMHO, it is only a railroad if the GM usurps player control over elements the player should be in control of (esp. character actions).

You are neglecting the fact that a player could be ok with a GM usurping narrative authority over the character in some cases. And you are equally neglecting that the cases where the player is ok with GM usurpation will vary from player to player. That phrase, "should be in control of", is hiding a subjective claim.

IOW, if the players go along with the GM's plotline because they want to, it is not a railroad.

Stop there. Don't confuse plot with a railroad. Plot in the literary sense isn't an essential aspect of a railroad. In another thread I tried to talk concretely about what a railroad was and how it worked. It's not a question of choosing or not choosing to go along with the plot. If I deploy Endurium Walls or build a Tiny World or use Schrödinger's Map or if I employ heavy handed Hand Waving, and you consent to play along with me because you enjoy the cut scene and don't mind the temporary loss of control over your character, the fact that you individually consented to it without objection (either actively or passively because you didn't notice what I did) doesn't mean I didn't use a railroad. With skilled railroading, what choices you make as a player are irrelevant. With a well made railroad, it becomes difficult or impossible to get off by exercising character choice and instead you can only object at the metagame level.

The need to identify a railroad objectively without defining it as a subjective experience is essential to allowing a DM to recognize when they are railroading. Otherwise, a DM is going to be tempted to see the problem as lying wholly with the players for refusing to play along, especially if in the past they or another group didn't object to the same technique.

Linear =/= railroad in the same way that sandbox =/= rowboat.

While I agree, that doesn't prove your point.

 

[chaochou]

We are already there. People already are using the words in different ways, often even changing the meaning that they are employing from sentense to sentense without realizing it. The description I'm giving is precisely to try to get people to clarify their thinking by giving less fuzzy definitions so that people can see what they are actually thinking, and better yet, what the people who don't agree with them are actually thinking.

That's exactly the point I'm making as well. Defining 'railroad' as purely the point of conflict (the subjective experience, in your words) separates it from techniques which may produce that experience, or may not.

It's confusing to call false choice 'railroading' and a bad play experience arising from a false choice 'railroading'. It's as confusing as calling snow on the road 'a car crash'.

We have the vocabulary in place to avoid any confusion. Once you define the railroad as the conflict and identify the cause by the technique which produced it. 'The players ended up railroaded because the DM kept giving them false choices'. Then there's no ambiguity.

The definition I'm using is well known in game theory. It's been on The Forge for 10 years, and is in the GNS glossary. Adopting it more widely would clear up a lot of misunderstanding, IMO.

In the absence of that, I'll continue to use it that way myself, because it limits my use of the word 'railroad' to those occasions when the game turned sour and minimises the risk of inadvertently annoying anyone else.