Telling a story vs. railroading

[Henry]

There are some VERY OPEN definitions of "Railroading" out there. I must say that I've never encountered this before, and it's definitely an eye opener.

For my group, there's one style of DM'ing that we all, unitedly, cannot stand: The totally "open DM." If a DM goes totally LARP-style freeform, it bugs the living daylights out of us, because to us it lacks focus, drive, and a reason to play. The one time our group tried one of the Storyteller games (Vampire the Masquerade), it was under a totally "open DM" who helped us with the rules, watched us make our characters, and when the game started, he gathered us around the table, and basically said, "now, roleplay." No plot, no hooks, no nothing except however our characters decided to interact with one another. So, when we began doing what we expected vampires to do (go hunting, etc.) it bugged him to no end because we basically went and did our own thing, directionlessly, and just basically became petty criminals. One day, I think I'll re-try VtM, but this one bad experience pretty much turned off the entire group to it.

The totally "open DMing" style may be good for some gamers, but for me it really (pun intended) bites. I'd rather have a DM say, "OK, these are the rumors you hear" and follow up on them, or the DM says, "a man comes bursting in, screaming for help!" and follow the big, glowing hook to whatever destination it leads. I don't consider either of these railroading. To me, railroading is when helping said screaming man REQUIRES our capture, or requires us to act in a way which must lead down one path, no matter our choice.

 

[buzz]

While a player being uncomfortable or uninterested can lead to unhappiness, it does not constitute a railroad.
...
The fact is, if the players don't like the story, I AM wasting their time, but that's not the same as railroading.

True. This is why I phrased my statement as "may very well be." Discomfort and unhappiness can certainly be caused by more than just railroading.

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.

Understood completely.

Still, given what I said about player expectations upthread, I felt that HappyElf had a point about bringing player comfort and acceptability into the equation. And notice that he specifically focused on these w/r/t the way in which player choice was removed. That's what I thought was important. Basically, have the players "bought in" to the current removal of choice or not?

I mean, I could imagine a functional game where, up front, the DM made it clear that the players would have almost no impact on the direction of the plot, and the players were okay with that. Maybe they're playing in Middle Earth, and the PCs are Rohirrim in the battle at Helm's Deep. Nothing they do will alter what happens in the books, but maybe that isn't their concern; maybe they just want to "be there." Maybe that's just "railroading with consent," but since impacting the plot isn't important to them, perhaps it's not "railroading" in the strictest sense.

Not quite my idea of fun, and pretty hypothetical, I know.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm trying hard - and dismally failing - to connect Happyelf's definitions of railroading with anything resembling a playable game. If any loss of player choice equals railroading, then how do you handle players who cannot for the life of them make a choice and expect the DM to do so? Or, more commonly, how do you handle a player making a choice that has nothing to do with the 4 other different choices made by the other players? And, in the end, how do you allow the DM to run what s/he wants, given that's probably why they're running the game in the first place?

Also, on the micro-railroad scale, at what point does presenting challenges become railroading? Any half-decent DM is not going to make every challenge exactly conform to the party's level and abilities; some will be pushovers, while others will be tough or even undefeatable. Is an undefeatable challenge a railroad? (No.) Does the DM *have* to somehow warn the party there's an undefeatable challenge ahead? (Not always) In a situation where the party's scout returns to say the left path is defended by a few Kobolds while the right path is defended by a HA Red Dragon, can the players cry railroad? (No)

On a more macro-scale, if the results of one adventure (let's say, the defeat of Evil Lord Widget's army) lead directly into the next (Lord Widget sends a wizard to blow the party away in revenge) is that a railroad? (No; though the PC's aren't gonna have much choice about whether or not they have to deal with the wizard, if this is defined as a railroad and thus classed as undesireable the game cannot usefully function)

Lane-"shovelling coal into the adventure engine since 1984"-fan.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I threw a poll up here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=169243) to test happyelf's assertation that his is the common usage. Although it is still quite early, I am frankly astonished that his definition leads the polls by more than 50% at this time. It may well be that, while I would prefer a clearer definition, the reality is that the one in most common usage is extremely nebulous.

If so, I wonder if this is a new thing....?

RC

 

[Rothe]

There are some VERY OPEN definitions of "Railroading" out there. I must say that I've never encountered this before, and it's definitely an eye opener.

For my group, there's one style of DM'ing that we all, unitedly, cannot stand: The totally "open DM." If a DM goes totally LARP-style freeform, it bugs the living daylights out of us, because to us it lacks focus, drive, and a reason to play. The one time our group tried one of the Storyteller games (Vampire the Masquerade), it was under a totally "open DM" who helped us with the rules, watched us make our characters, and when the game started, he gathered us around the table, and basically said, "now, roleplay." No plot, no hooks, no nothing except however our characters decided to interact with one another. So, when we began doing what we expected vampires to do (go hunting, etc.) it bugged him to no end because we basically went and did our own thing, directionlessly, and just basically became petty criminals. One day, I think I'll re-try VtM, but this one bad experience pretty much turned off the entire group to it.

The totally "open DMing" style may be good for some gamers, but for me it really (pun intended) bites. I'd rather have a DM say, "OK, these are the rumors you hear" and follow up on them, or the DM says, "a man comes bursting in, screaming for help!" and follow the big, glowing hook to whatever destination it leads. I don't consider either of these railroading. To me, railroading is when helping said screaming man REQUIRES our capture, or requires us to act in a way which must lead down one path, no matter our choice.

Well I'd have to call that "open DMing" style non-DMing. That opened my eyes (pun intended). It's certainly not what I refer to as open DMing or style. Rather, I view open as quite the opposite, in open DMing you have to provide dozens of rumors, basically the whole local news of whats happening, i.e., hooks, rumors, etc. It's open in that as a DM you are ready to run any one of these dozen hooks at any time. An even more open approach is when the characters become familiar with the setting campaign world. After a time a player may ask whatever happened to wizard x or the fabled item of y? I'm open is they can try to garner information to find out...which will lead to an adventure. You are open into turning what was once fluff into an adventure. I've a couple dungeons reseverd for this purpose, ie., they will be the location of item y, so in a given night I can have the adventure for item y ready even though the player just thought of pursueing such that very night.

So I don't consider open DMing as sitting back and providing nadda, quite the opposite providing them with dozens of adventure hooks/rumors that each of which you are prepared to run that night, being prepared to run them in an overland adventure, a city adventure, basically anything. So open in that you are open to try anything and I'm ready for it.

Hence my defense of what I call open DMing.

 

[Rothe]

I threw a poll .... (snipped to save the server) ...to test happyelf's assertation that his is the common usage. Although it is still quite early, I am frankly astonished that his definition leads the polls by more than 50% at this time. It may well be that, while I would prefer a clearer definition, the reality is that the one in most common usage is extremely nebulous.

If so, I wonder if this is a new thing....?

RC

For me the options were unclear. I almost voted the first option but I don't agree with happyelf's assertions, to the extent I understand them as being if a player doesn't like it it is a railroad. I actually thought the first option better reflected your position than the other two!

 

[Montague68]

There are some VERY OPEN definitions of "Railroading" out there. I must say that I've never encountered this before, and it's definitely an eye opener.

For my group, there's one style of DM'ing that we all, unitedly, cannot stand: The totally "open DM." If a DM goes totally LARP-style freeform, it bugs the living daylights out of us, because to us it lacks focus, drive, and a reason to play. The one time our group tried one of the Storyteller games (Vampire the Masquerade), it was under a totally "open DM" who helped us with the rules, watched us make our characters, and when the game started, he gathered us around the table, and basically said, "now, roleplay." No plot, no hooks, no nothing except however our characters decided to interact with one another. So, when we began doing what we expected vampires to do (go hunting, etc.) it bugged him to no end because we basically went and did our own thing, directionlessly, and just basically became petty criminals. One day, I think I'll re-try VtM, but this one bad experience pretty much turned off the entire group to it.

You had a very bad storyteller. A standard, by-the-book VtM game is basically "players vs. the railroad". Railroading is ingrained into the game. Under WW canon most young vampires cannot leave the city they inhabit because werewolves would tear them apart. You have to bootlick NPC Elders or else be punished. Even if you are powerful enough to take down an Elder, Camarilla laws forbid it and the ST has all sorts of tools to bring the hammer down on you.

The essence of VtM is to play the political game and allow the elders to order you around and suck up to them (no pun intended) in public, but work subtly and gradually behind the scenes to get your goals accomplished. I've been in very few VtM games that played out this way - either the players were unwilling or unable to play this way or the ST was incapable of handling it. Most games end up a combat-crazed bloodbath, or a twisted version of modern-day monsters playing D&D.

 

[shilsen]

I threw a poll up here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=169243) to test happyelf's assertation that his is the common usage. Although it is still quite early, I am frankly astonished that his definition leads the polls by more than 50% at this time. It may well be that, while I would prefer a clearer definition, the reality is that the one in most common usage is extremely nebulous.

If so, I wonder if this is a new thing....?

RC

I think the problem is that the poll itself is a little vague and very open to interpretation and semantics, as has been the case here. Personally, I agree with you about happyelf's definition. The definition of railroading, for me, is irrelevant of whether the players are happy with it or not. Some groups and campaigns might be very high on railroading and the players might be fine with it, but that doesn't change that it is high on railroading. IMNSHO, of course.

 

[Elfdart]

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.

Do these gods herd PCs around? If yes, it's a railroad.

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?

Can you argue your points honestly without resorting to strawmen?

Characters who do things that violate their alignment (and class) and face consequences are entirely different from PCs being led by the nose because the DM decided in advance how every encounter will turn out.

 

[Elfdart]

I think one problem is that we should define our terms. Maybe this will help.

A pro sports league (let's say the NFL) decides the ground rules for the games. It establishes where and when the game will be played and against whom. It also establishes the overall schedule and tries to enforce the rules.

The NFL does NOT tell coaches and players what plays they can call, which players get to start and so on -and they sure as hell don't decide on a final score before the opening kickoff. That's the sports equivalent of railroading.