Telling a story vs. railroading

[Raven Crowking]

I believe the idea is that if the PCs must do dungeons A, B, and C, then its railroading. If they can do A, B, or C, in any combonation, or none at all, then it isn't railroading.

I don't believe anything in my example required the PCs to do any of the aforementioned dungeons.

From point A, they have a choice of proceeding to points B, C, D, or E. That's quite a clear branch in the railroad tracks. After choosing point E of these options, they have indeed proceeded in a line of their own choosing.

But, regardless of this, if they choose to go to points B, then E, then F (new one) that's still linear. The idea that something is linear doesn't make it railroading; the idea that something is linear and the players cannot determine (or strongly influence) the line does.

I think the disconnect we're having is that you're saying that any DM restriction = railroading, whereas I'm saying that having even one meaningful choice at the "direction of the campaign" level is enough for it not to be considered railroading. Even a choice of the order in which adventures are played is enough to prevent it falling into my definition of railroading.

I find your definition a bit of a furphy, because any arbitrary decision on the nature of the game such as "goblins live in the Skull Hills and not flumphs" could be considered a restriction on the PCs ("But....we want to fight flumphs!"), and therefore "railroading".

I wasn't saying that any DM restriction = railroading. I was saying that the statement "any DM restriction = railroading" is fraught with peril. I had actually gotten the idea from your posts that you were espousing "any DM restriction = railroading" and was responding to that idea. And, you're right, that idea is furphy (at best).

Like I said earlier, I sorta agree with you. I certainly agree with the general campaign model, as my (sadly not updated) story hour shows. Players get lots of options, some pretty solid hooks, and each adventure leads into branching options that they may or may not follow up = lots of fun for everyone. However, I also would argue that if a DM runs an adventure path, states upfront that he is running an adventure path, and the players agree to play that adventure path, that agreement means per force that running the adventure path is not railroading, no matter how linear that path may be (in the non-branching sense).

Meaningful choice always includes the ability to remove options as a consequence of choice. In the strictest sense, this means that if I do something stupid as a player, my character can die (I strongly dislike DM fudging for this reason). Doing something that limits your choices does not constitute railroading. The choice "You will join me or die" is a meaningful choice. That the player misses a potential escape route (fall down the shaft to the lowest bowels of Cloud City) does not make this choice any less meaningful. However, if the DM disallows a different escape route just because he had not forseen it, then meaningful choice has disappeared and railroading is in full Force (pun intended).

IMHO, at least.

 

[rounser]

But, regardless of this, if they choose to go to points B, then E, then F (new one) that's still linear. The idea that something is linear doesn't make it railroading; the idea that something is linear and the players cannot determine (or strongly influence) the line does.

Okay, we probably agree then. I think I was using the term "linear" in the sense of the campaign goes like this:
A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F
...and nothing PCs can do changes that...rather than something that looks more like a flow diagram with contingencies, AND, OR and XOR conditions, and loops....or in the case of an improvisational DM, not even specified to that degree. The PCs do indeed go in a line along such a flow diagram (but that line's not predetermined).

However, I also would argue that if a DM runs an adventure path, states upfront that he is running an adventure path, and the players agree to play that adventure path, that agreement means per force that running the adventure path is not railroading, no matter how linear that path may be (in the non-branching sense).

I think these are the auspices under which the game is usually played. If the players and DM are in agreement that the course of the campaign is set in stone, then the PCs won't challenge that, and will happily just buy their ticket and get on the train. Technically it's still railroading IMO, and I find it hard to buy the argument that it's not just because players are passively accepting every plot hook (regardless of whether they really find it compelling) and aren't challenging it. I think people want the label to disappear when this is the case purely because the "railroad" label has negative connotations, but if players and DM have accepted that the campaign is designed that way, where's the bad wrong fun? A campaign can be a complete railroad and still be fun, as the game's history has proved countless times.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't believe anything in my example required the PCs to do any of the aforementioned dungeons.

My mistake. You were assuming the PCs were choosing to do them.

I do think there's a disconnect on our definitions of linear, though. But, I agree that linearality doesn't mean railroading, so long as the PCs either 1) can jump off the tracks or 2) were the ones who laid them themselves.

But, I do agree with rounser that agreeing to play Age of Worms is just agreeing to be railroaded. I talked a little about that above. Some players like intricate plots and don't mind giving up PC freedom to obtain that level of cohesion in the campaign. It isn't a bad thing, but just because everybody agrees to ride the rails doesn't mean the rails don't exist.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Okay, we probably agree then. I think I was using the term "linear" in the sense of the campaign goes like this:
A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F
...and nothing PCs can do changes that...rather than something that looks more like a flow diagram with contingencies, AND, OR and XOR conditions, and loops....or in the case of an improvisational DM, not even specified to that degree. The PCs do indeed go in a line along such a flow diagram (but that line's not predetermined).

It sounds like we agree until we get to this point:

I think these are the auspices under which the game is usually played. If the players and DM are in agreement that the course of the campaign is set in stone, then the PCs won't challenge that, and will happily just buy their ticket and get on the train. Technically it's still railroading IMO, and I find it hard to buy the argument that it's not just because players are passively accepting every plot hook (regardless of whether they really find it compelling) and aren't challenging it. I think people want the label to disappear when this is the case purely because the "railroad" label has negative connotations, but if players and DM have accepted that the campaign is designed that way, where's the bad wrong fun? A campaign can be a complete railroad and still be fun, as the game's history has proved countless times.

If we accept that the first example is still linear, then something being linear has nothing to do with the term. Rather, a "railroad" occurs or does not occur based on why the example is linear. IMHO, a railroad occurs when the DM usurps player choice. If player choice is not usurped, it is not a railroad.

 

[rounser]

If player choice is not usurped, it is not a railroad.

Fair enough...you think that if lack of choice is not challenged, and in-game coercion isn't involved, then it's not a railroad.

I think that passive compliance with a set path is still a railroad, but an accepted one (and such compliance is probably the norm, in order to not disrupt the game, which is a good thing...a lot of groups run under these unstated assumptions of going along with the adventure "prepared for tonight"). Now we're just using different definitions for the same word.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My mistake. You were assuming the PCs were choosing to do them.

I'm sorry if that was not clear from my post. I would say that a thing is linear when it follows a line. There is at least one example in this thread of a DM script that the players were not (at the time) aware of; clearly they were on a line with the illusion of choice. So long as their choices and the DM's script went hand-in-hand, an argument can be made that the railroad was only a potential railroad. The test of railroading has always been, and must be, what happens when you try to jump tracks. Maybe the script DM could have swung with that. If so, not a railroad. At least, IMHO.

But, I do agree with rounser that agreeing to play Age of Worms is just agreeing to be railroaded. I talked a little about that above. Some players like intricate plots and don't mind giving up PC freedom to obtain that level of cohesion in the campaign. It isn't a bad thing, but just because everybody agrees to ride the rails doesn't mean the rails don't exist.

If you agree with the proposition that "The test of railroading has always been, and must be, what happens when you try to jump tracks," then agreeing to follow the path is not a railroad. As I said earlier, IMHO, a railroad occurs when the DM usurps player choice. If player choice is not usurped, it is not a railroad. Linear development alone is not sufficient because linear development (i.e., something follows something else follows something else) is mandatory regardless of who is steering the ship. If the players agree to go A-B-C, then they are steering the ship.

Conversely, if the players were following the Shackled City adventure path, grew tired of it, and decided to go delve into Castle Greyhawk instead, and the DM forced them onto the next section, then there is railroading. If the DM says "Sorry, but I'm running Shackled City; perhaps someone else might like to do Castle Greyhawk" within this context, and simply stopped DMing, there is no railroad. The DM has not killed the potential of the characters; the players have no right to expect anything outside the initial "contract".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fair enough...you think that if lack of choice is not challenged, and in-game coercion isn't involved, then it's not a railroad.

I think that passive compliance with a set path is still a railroad, but an accepted one (and such compliance is probably the norm, in order to not disrupt the game, which is a good thing...a lot of groups run under these unstated assumptions of going along with the adventure "prepared for tonight"). Now we're just using different definitions for the same word.

Most arguments come down to semantics, IME, which is why a good set of working definitions is so important. The question then becomes, which definition is better? If we were to discuss railroading, should I adopt your definition, or should you adopt mine, for the purposes of discussion?

I would argue that whatever definition draws more meaningful distinctions, while maintaining the same general meaning within common parlance, is the most useful for the purposes of discussion. Which is why, while I see your position, I have to side more with Quasqueton on this one. A definition with too many variables is simply less useful as a definition.

If the term in question has negative connotations, this is doubly true.

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

If you agree with the proposition that "The test of railroading has always been, and must be, what happens when you try to jump tracks," then agreeing to follow the path is not a railroad.

Not "what happens when you try" but "is it possible in the first place."

If the PCs wanted to do X what would it be possible? If it would, then no railroad. If it isn't possible, then it is a railroad. You're seeing it as more of a Schrodinger's game, whereas I'm peeking in the box even when no choice has been made.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not "what happens when you try" but "is it possible in the first place."

If the PCs wanted to do X what would it be possible? If it would, then no railroad. If it isn't possible, then it is a railroad. You're seeing it as more of a Schrodinger's game, whereas I'm peeking in the box even when no choice has been made.

Ah, but you are assuming that there is a way to know whether it is possible in the first place without any attempt made at variance. In other words, you are applying a test based upon the assumption of possiblity or non-possibility, whereas I am saying that the assumption, untested, has no informational value.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Ah, but you are assuming that there is a way to know whether it is possible in the first place without any attempt made at variance. In other words, you are applying a test based upon the assumption of possiblity or non-possibility, whereas I am saying that the assumption, untested, has no informational value.

Presumably the DM knows. And, if you aren't him, you could ask him. But, either way, the state of the game exists, even if the PCs aren't even aware of it.

Give the PCs the choice to go left or right and they have the encounter with the goblins no matter what. The Players didn't know that. Is it a railroad plot?