Telling a story vs. railroading

[Hussar]

This linear action doesn't have to be long-term, but it does have to exist. In the beginning of the WLD, for instance, the moment you enter the dungeon the exit disappears. There is no way to detect or avoid this. That is definitely linear, it definitely usurps player control, and it is definitely a railroad. (There, Hussar, now you can have something to argue with me about.) Once inside the dungeon, teleportation spells do not work to get you outside the dungeon, but play is no longer linear. You have lots and lots of options; you do not, however, have every possible option. Some player control has been usurped, but many options abound. The railroad is over; linear play has ended; reasonable choice has resumed.

Naw, I can live with that. I would say that it isn't much different than starting any other large campaign anyway. You start out by asking the players if they are interested in something like this and go for it. Trying to surprise players with something of this magnitude is perhaps a very bad idea.

HappyElf, from what I can see, you are saying that any time a given player thinks that he's being railroaded, he is.

While I'm not usually one to side on the idea of the hyperpowered DM, I gotta call ballocks here. A player could be correct in his interpretation. But, he could also be 100% wrong. Just because he thinks he's being railroaded, doesn't make it true. There are any number of examples here of players not being railroaded, even though the DM is stripping choices away from him.

This is a definition which carries no weight. It's just like the "videogamey" term that gets tossed about. You could easily define "videogamey" as "any game element I don't like which can remotely be compared to something appearing in any video game ever". It's pointless as a criticism. If the only criteria for railroading is player supposition, then railroading has absolutely no value as a critical term.

Back to Riprock for a sec.

Nice strawman. My campaign has all of those things. But if a group of PCs has the nerve to tell one of those figures to buzz off and have the power to make it stick, I'm not about to pull something ridiculous out of my uh... hat just to make them do something.

This is not a strawman. You stated:

But having a superpowered monster, NPC or gods herding the PCs around is poor gaming in my opinion.

Every PC cleric, paladin, or druid has a god or at least divine somethingorother, herding him around. The rules are pretty clear what happens when the divine caster tells his god off. The character loses his spells for one. When a cleric violates the tenets of his ethos, he gets stripped.

Player 1: Yeah man, you should of seen it. After I snuck through the window and cut the head off the duke and duchess, I snuck into the daughters room, ravished her, set the bed on fire, grabbed the jewels and dove out the window.

Player 2: Umm, dude, aren't you a priest of Heironeous?

Player 1: Yeah, but, no worries. My DM is so scared of railroading that he thinks that herding me with my god would cramp my style. He thinks its poor gaming.

If you refuse to allow any control over your players by NPC's, how do you justify any consequences for their actions?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Naw, I can live with that.

Well, at least I tried.

 

[Janx]

This is not a strawman. You stated:

But having a superpowered monster, NPC or gods herding the PCs around is poor gaming in my opinion.

Every PC cleric, paladin, or druid has a god or at least divine somethingorother, herding him around. The rules are pretty clear what happens when the divine caster tells his god off. The character loses his spells for one. When a cleric violates the tenets of his ethos, he gets stripped.

People get used and directed ALL the time in real life. This is a common theme for bad guys using good guys, etc. People get forced into doing stuff. The turn-around in the story is when the victim of such gets pay it back. Even your boss is telling you what to do. There are REAL consequences for not doing what your boss tells you. The same should occur in the game as well.

Players who want real freedom should take care to have no bosses over them, and leave no leverage against themselves. The result is often KoDT-style characters that end up killing every NPC they meet.

The point of having a PC work for others is to generate plot ideas and situations. If you avoid all NPC interactions and complications, and ties, the only adventures you will have will consist of killing monsters and taking their stuff. No events external to direct PC action will ever occur, resulting in a very flat game.

This is why PCs join guilds, swear fealty, worship a god, and have families. To generate plot hooks of events happening around them. Just like real life, you will have to journey to the land of faraway medicine (Walgreens) to get the secret herb (Tylenol) for your ailing grandma. It's not a railroad, it's an event that caused a request for your help. That request won't be denied(in character, for most PCs), as such it is a heavily weighted choice (weight being, you're gonna do it).

 

[happyelf]

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that there is no objective assessment that can be made regarding railroading, that the only criteria required for subjective assessment is how the player feels about something that occurs in the game, that there must be some removal of player choice or power so long as the caveat that only how the player feels determines whether or not there was removal of player choice or power and/or whether such limitations were legitimate, and that this is the most commonly accepted useage of the term "railroading". Have I got that quite right?

It is quite right, even if you don't accept it. When a player says "this is railroading!" that is why they are saying it.

Look, i'm not opposed to objective or universal terms when discussing roleplaying,. I've argued on their behalf on other forums. And I can think of may types of problem player/GM who's behaviour might lead them to railroad, independant of the preferences of players- likewise there are many type of problem player who are unable to accept the role of the GM in the conventional mode*, and will rail against that no matter what, unless they get their way.

But the reality is that roleplaying is a vastly subjective and variable process, collectivly it includes many, many variations of play-style, preference, areas of interest, and so on. And something like railroading is a perfect example of that in action. One player's challenge is another player's killer DM. One group might welcome a campaign where the orders are given by an NPC in a position of authority, another group might recoiol at the very thought! And while there are many models for 'legitimate usage of power' by the GM, ALL of them are primarily a matter of preference and habit.

That doesn't mean they're bad, or wrong, it just means that they're not universal, and they are far less broadly applied than railroading itself. Applying railroading exclusivly to one instance or set of power-norms or another is an error. It is flat out wrong.

Now, you are stuck on your definition, and nothing is going to change that, so i'm not going to try and convince you any further. But the fact remains:

Railroading is when player choice is removed in a manner wich the player finds inapropriate or otherwise objectionable.



*These problem players are distinct from non-problem players who simply do not enjoy the conventional type of RPG and prefer other types of play such as freeform or shared control, ect.

HappyElf, from what I can see, you are saying that any time a given player thinks that he's being railroaded, he is.

It's not that simple but that's the basic reality that you're all ignoring. Railroading is a matter of preference.

While I'm not usually one to side on the idea of the hyperpowered DM, I gotta call ballocks here. A player could be correct in his interpretation. But, he could also be 100% wrong.

No, he can't. If he finds his options in the game limited, that is a problem. That is THE problem we're discussing. People not having fun at the table is priority #1 for any game worth playing. Brushing that off is absurd. There is no way such a claim can be "100% wrong".

Just because he thinks he's being railroaded, doesn't make it true. There are any number of examples here of players not being railroaded, even though the DM is stripping choices away from him.

You're just using circular logic. "These are examples of non-railroading because they are". Wrong. Those are examples of railroading.

When a GM takes choice away from the player, in a way the player finds objectionable, that is railroading.

This is a definition which carries no weight. It's just like the "videogamey" term that gets tossed about.

Again, this sounds like you just brush off terminology you don't like. 'Carries no weight'? How so? It carries a hell of a lot of weight when a GM is left with no players, or players waste months of time on a game that the GM claimed would not have railroading in it, but really, really does, despite the GM's reading of wikipedia or a thread on an internet forum. Those events carry real weight. All this talk and semantics is weightless compared to that.

Again, there's no point this continuing if you just brush off any argument you don't like with empty rebuttal like "It carries no weight", or "It's so broad it's useless, like half the words in the english language".

If the only criteria for railroading is player supposition, then railroading has absolutely no value as a critical term.

Wrong again. The definintion obviously, undeniably has value as a critical term, unlike the other definitions being bandied about, wich are all about letting the GM off the hook from criticism.

 

[Janx]

Railroading is when player choice is removed in a manner wich the player finds inapropriate or otherwise objectionable.

I disagree with half your statement. Here's my version:
Raileroading is when player choice is removed in a manner that defies logic, chance or PC action.

I think Happyelf is lumping in player fun/objection with railroading. I choose to seperate them.

Railroading is a negative GMing behavior. It causes player unhappiness.

The following other events occur to PCs that also player unhappiness:
PC death
PC capture
PC loss of gear
PC rape
PC stripping
PC defeated
PC vs. PC combat/bullying
PC wanted/outlaw
PC bad luck
PC out of place (ranger in an urban political campaign)

There are lots of instances where a PC can lose control, have loss of choices. And they are fair and RIGHT instances.

If a PC falls down a pit trap, he has lost many choices on how to continue. He is restricted to a few choices of escape (what gear and spells he has, and abilities). He may not do anything else until he gets out of the hole. The player will object to being in the hole. But it is not a railroad, so obviously, railroading and objecting to a situation are seperate things.

Furthermore, a test of "is this a railroad" is in order. Take situation X that your PC is in. If a fellow PC could have arranged the same situation against you, it's probably not railroading, it's just a situation you don't like.

I don't like the " in a manner wich the player finds inapropriate or otherwise objectionable." because it leads to Player Fiat, which is just as bad as GM Fiat. It implies that "If I don't like it, it must be railroading." I believe there are clear examples where you won't like it and it ain't railroading. Therefore HappyElf's statement is imprecise.

I do not dismiss his point about player unhappiness. As a GM, if your game leads to player unhappiness, you will lose players and your game will end.

 

[Rothe]

...snip...
I have two further experiences to relate.

One is that I have tried to run an 'infinite' choice campaign, proffering various rumours to the players at the beginning and seeing what they would take. It was very nearly still-born as they really wanted to be hired by the archetypal crusty old dwarf and _told_ what to do. Once it got going, it worked, but in my opinion a strong and obvious campaign opening hook is extremely useful.

Second, the published adventures that I like the most are all quite old, and are more of a tool-kit than a specified sequence. The old (original) Traveller adventures are good for this, as is the RuneQuest classic Griffin Island/Mountain. Both are maps for place, stats for people, some rumours, some supplemental information. Add players, wind 'em up and watch 'em go.

This agrees with my experience as well, especially the first point. Nowdays our gaming time is severly constrained by family and work responsibilities. I'd love to have the palyers do "research" in-game to find an adventure but they asked me to set something up for them. I asked them some general questions about what they are looking for and put something together and opened with a hook/intro consistent with the campaign. No plot though, they go to the area with whatever goals they wish, nothing is preordained. Is this a railroad? I don't think so, nothing to "derail," no measures taken by me to keep them here or there besides what naturally flows from the situations they get themselves into.

Just because a DM sets up the situations I don't call that a railroad even if some are beyond the PCs. However, a DM that seems to have a plethora of illogical killer encounters I consider more of the "killer DM" syndrome. When they are used to punish players for not playing his way, that is a railroad of a sort, or maybe the worst sort.

 

[buzz]

I don't like the " in a manner wich the player finds inapropriate or otherwise objectionable." because it leads to Player Fiat, which is just as bad as GM Fiat. It implies that "If I don't like it, it must be railroading." I believe there are clear examples where you won't like it and it ain't railroading. Therefore HappyElf's statement is imprecise.

Hmm...

I think it can depend on what you mean when you say a player "doesn't like" what's happening. I.e., I think there's a difference between the player who is simply not mature enough to deal with adversity and challenge (the classic "I want to win all the time!") and the player who is either uncomfortable or uninterested in what's happening to his PC in-game.

The former case isn't relevant to the discussion, IMO, because this is just someone you need to boot from the table.

In the latter case, if you, as their DM, are forcing them down a path—be it one filled with adversity OR even ample reward—that they are not genuinely enjoying, then we may very well be talking "railroad."

E.g., throwing a CR20 red dragon at a 1st-level party may be entirely justified by the setting ("Hey, dragons live around here, okay?"), and may even help you get the party to some sort of desired, dramatic follow-up scene. Unfortunately, it also completely negates their ability to act; the challenge is unfair and the outcome is inevitable. Even for players who had dragon-hunting as a goal for their PCs are going to feel cheated.

However, throwing a more appriopriate, young CR3 dragon at the same group gives them a chance to strut their stuff. They may very well die in the process, but at least it'll be a good fight that likely could have gone either way.

The former is adversity in the basest sense; it's the DM asserting his alpha-dominance at the player's expense. The latter is the kind of adversity that builds character (literally, in D&D's case). I think players should be allowed to let you know whether they feel they're on the business end of one or the other.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that there is no objective assessment that can be made regarding railroading, that the only criteria required for subjective assessment is how the player feels about something that occurs in the game, that there must be some removal of player choice or power so long as the caveat that only how the player feels determines whether or not there was removal of player choice or power and/or whether such limitations were legitimate, and that this is the most commonly accepted useage of the term "railroading". Have I got that quite right?

It is quite right, even if you don't accept it. When a player says "this is railroading!" that is why they are saying it.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. However, it smacks of sophistry to me. Moreover, if I accepted your definition, and I was a crummy DM, my response to any claim of railroading (however justifiable under my definition) would be "Railroading is a subjective state. You are only being railroaded because of your attitude. Learn to like it, and it won't be railroading anymore."

A definition which has objective criteria can at least be discussed. If you feel you are being railroaded, why is that? Is it because you feel that the DM is taking choices away that he should not be? Is it because the game seems to linear? Both problems can be addressed because they are identifiable.

I guess this is the problem I have with the subjectivist movement in art and literature. One assumes that a writer or artist is trying to convey something with a piece of work. Failure to convey what is meant to be conveyed is a failure of the work, IMHO, and no amount of "It means what you want it to mean" changes that. If it means what I want it to mean, what did I need the writer/artist for?

Anyway, you are welcome to your definition, but I hope you understand that some people (I would say the majority, despite your claim, but who knows?) might not find its subjectivism as useful as a tad more definitive definition.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

In the latter case, if you, as their DM, are forcing them down a path—be it one filled with adversity OR even ample reward—that they are not genuinely enjoying, then we may very well be talking "railroad."

I don't think that anyone in this discussion would not agree that you are describing a railroad, buzz. The question raised by happyelf is very specifically whether or not any objective determinant can be used.

In other words, using the happyelf definition, "the player who is simply not mature enough to deal with adversity and challenge" is being railroaded, no matter how open and accomodating the set up, so long as he feels that he is for any reason whatsoever, and there is no amount of discussion, analysis, or logic that can change that "fact".

Happyelf, please correct me if I am misreading your position.

 

[Janx]

and the player who is either uncomfortable or uninterested in what's happening to his PC in-game.

While a player being uncomfortable or uninterested can lead to unhappiness, it does not constitute a railroad.

What if the rest of the party is happy with being in the city, dealing with politics, while the Ranger wishes he were out hunting orcs?

What if, while hunting orcs, the player discover the orcs are being paid by a trade guild in the city to attack rival merchants? And the party decided to goto the city to investigate further?

As a GM, I cannot guarrantee that you the player, or your PC will be comfortable or interested in everything that goes on in the game (no GM can, they can only try).

I can however, avoid the railroading mistakes which I outlined in my other posts, which will result in better execution of adventures. And those guidelines won't guarrantee the players will like the adventure anymore.

I look at it this way, there are certain PC types, that presented with a certain type of problem, will respond to it in certain way. To do otherwise would be "not playing in character". So if a party of Paladins discovers the local orcs nest is cooking babies for breakfast, and nothing more pressing is going on, then the paladins WILL be rescuing said babies. That's not a railroad. The PCs didn't have to rescue the babies. It's just that they're not given a better alternative (though there are others). The fact that the players don't like rescuing babies from orcs is also not railroading.

The fact is, if the players don't like the story, I AM wasting their time, but that's not the same as railroading.

Railroading is forcing events and outcomes to suit a DM's preplanned path, instead of letting the dice decide

Crappy adventure writing is picking a plot that doesn't interest the players, and doesn't appeal to the PCs.

In all these posts, you discern a pattern. I am seperating symptoms from causes and effects. I see railroading, crappy plots, and unhappy players as distinct elements, that while related, are seperate. I feel that by seperating them, and identifying the cause, you can treat the cause more precisely.

If you want to avoid railroading, do what I said in prior posts.

If you want to avoid crappy plots, examine what type of stories your players want, AND what kinds of hooks the PCs would take (based on PC definition and the player behind it).