Telling a story vs. railroading

[rounser]

I'll bite.

There's nothing to bite! I'm trying to defuse Raven Crowking's fabrication of what I've posted, and haven't invited unsolicited comments from you on out-of-context quotes from me which are merely defining the scope of my argument! Why? So that I don't get dragged down into the quagmire of semantics which this thread represents!

You could define railroading as this, but this is the LEAST dangerous form of railroading ----> IMO<----.

Fixed it for you.

IMO, it's the most fundamental and important form of railroading because it determines the nature of the campaign from start to end, and guess what: for purposes of defining what I'm arguing, what you think doesn't matter. Not one bit. Go argue with those who are actually stating an argument, not merely describing what they're talking about.

Basically I dismiss your concern of railroading being Adventure to Adventure. Certainly it can happen, but the bigger problems lie inside the adventure.

Basically, in the context of what I posted for what reason, what you think and "dismiss" doesn't matter one jot! I didn't repost for your benefit, but rather to correct Raven Crowking's misrepresentation of my posts. So go argue and "basically dismiss" the argument of someone actually stating an argument, not someone merely stating the scope of what they've been talking about!

 

[Lanefan]

In your opinion. In mine, it's the most fundamental form of railroading because it determines the nature of the campaign from start to end, ...

And I dismiss your unsolicited two cents, because your initial premise that "having campaign mapped out from start to finish is the least important form of railroading" is completely and utterly subjective and (IMO) flawed. ...

I don't care what you consider railroading, but was simply defining the kind of railroading I was talking about, and consider the biggest concern. The fact that you disagree doesn't matter - that that was the only kind of railroading I was referring to is the fact which is important.

So to be clear, you're referring here to what others are calling "macro-railroading" on a campaign level, rather than "micro-railroading" within a single adventure...right? I'm willing to bet (but could be wrong) that most people are more concerned about micro-railroading within an adventure, and are mostly willing to leave the overall storyline (if any) up to the DM to engineer (pun intended) as s/he sees fit.

In the end, regardless of all other considerations, it comes down to one thing: if the DM can't at least within broad parameters run what s/he wants to run, there probably won't be a game at all for any players to make choices in! :\

I usually try to "storyboard" a few adventures ahead, so if something down the road needs a hook or some buildup now, I can do it. If the players ignore it or decide to do something different, so be it...but that's not going to stop me trying to plan ahead, and nor should it, though I get the strong impression some here think otherwise.

Lanefan

 

[rounser]

So to be clear, you're referring here to what others are calling "macro-railroading" on a campaign level, rather than "micro-railroading" within a single adventure...right? I'm willing to bet (but could be wrong) that most people are more concerned about micro-railroading within an adventure, and are mostly willing to leave the overall storyline (if any) up to the DM to engineer (pun intended) as s/he sees fit.

I've been quite, quite clear about what I'm referring to, and I'm no longer involved in this argument, except for attempts like this to drag me back into it.

Go to page five of this thread and you can read two requotes of me saying variations on the same thing three times! That's a total of nine statements of exactly what I'm discussing in this thread! All you have to do to understand the scope of my argument and what I'm referring to is read them.

 

[Hussar]

I think the issue RC, is that you used the word userpation in your poll. Most people aren't going to vote for the big words. THe first option sounds very close to what you mean anyway.

So, Elfdart, it is perfectly acceptable for the DM to strip away a cleric's powers if the DM deems that the player has stepped outside of his alignment. How is that not leading a player around by the nose? Sure, the god isn't saying, "Go here, do this" but he is saying, "If you do this, you will suffer! Don't do it!"

Yes, it's an extreme case, but, then again, you're the one saying that there should be NO influence upon the PC's outside of the PC's themselves. If that's not what you are saying, could you please state what you are saying?

Back to the railroad thing. Let's go back to the example of the PC missing with a 16 when he hit with a 16 the round before. Now, it's true that this COULD be railroading. However, there are a number of other explanations:

• The Dodge feat
• The combat expertise feat
• Contingency spells
• A monster ability which increases his AC every time he is hit
• A curse on the player that the player is not aware of

Now, any of the above is perfectly legitimate. Particularly dodge and combat expertise. Assuming of course that the DM isn't playing silly buggers (which WOULD be railroading), the player is 100% wrong in calling railroad. Unless using the combat expertise feat is somehow railroading, which I think most of us would agree that it isn't.

The only person at the table that truly knows if he's railroading or not is the DM. Shouldn't any definition of railroading center on the DM?

As far as charming goes. Does that mean I can never use vampires in my game? After all, vampires have a charm gaze attack. They can charm an entire party fairly easily. Am I railroading by using a vampire? Of course not. So, even the use of charm may not be railroading.

In other words, yes, the players may suspect railroading, but only the DM knows for sure since the players are not in possession of all the facts. Basing the definition solely on the players is ridiculous. It has no value since the player's perception may be entirely wrong. Yes, they might think they are being railroaded, but, in fact it is simply the game being played that is reaching a particular conclusion. Yes, you missed this round with a 16 but hit last round. Yes, I might be railroading, but, not necessarily. Until you know either way, it is not fair to the table to scream railroad.

 

[Delta]

Here's some examples of what I think on the issue.

Railroading: Module X4 wilderness. A huge desert; regardless of where PC's choose to journey, the same wilderness encounters automatically happen.

Not Railroading: Module X1 wilderness. A large island; lots of placed encounters that PC's might run into, miss, or avoid.


Railroading: Any adventure with events pre-planned in a specific sequence that build a predetermined plot during play. Any adventure that tells in the notes up front what the climax will be, with advice on how to keep PC's "on track" if they waver or resist. I had a DM try to use the Forgotten Realms adventure "Northern Journey". The whole playgroup ultimately criticized it as being a railroad in this sense and we dropped it. You can see a synopsis here, where it predetermines all the places and events that the PC's will travel to (it's even more obvious from the actual adventure, because each event has a predetermined conclusion):
http://www.defragsrealms.com/times/archive/ftprojectnews.html#journey

Not Railroading: Basically, any of the classic original AD&D adventures. Even if PC's are hooked into a specific location, the sequence of encounters and action is up to them, including (a) clearing the place out, (b) dying horribly, (c) running away and never coming back.

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with the premise that time based adventures are railroads.

Take our Mad Scientist. He's experimenting to create a massive big bad critter. Doctor Moreau type. The adventure could have the following timeline:

Day 1: Experiment X escapes from its captivity and begins terrorizing the neighbourhood.

Day 5: Unless otherwise, the Mad Scientist catches Experiment X and goes back to work.

Day 7: Mad Scientist needs more parts. Goes to the graveyard for a little shopping.

Day 11: Mad Scientist has limited success. His new monster, Monster Y, eats Experiment X but is controlled by Mad Scientist.

Day 13: Mad Scientist field tests Monster Y by obliterating Farms J, K and L.

Day 30: Mad Scientist succeeds in creating Monster Z. Monster Z is the new master monster.

Day 32: Mad Scientist leaves his lab to automatically make more Monster Z's, field tests Monster Z by destroying large town.

Day 50: Mad Scientist now uses his army of Monster Z's to carve out a kingdom for himself.

There, now I have a nice little timeline to work from. This in no way railroads the party who can stop Mad Scientist at ANY time. Obviously, this framework needs a lot more work before it hits play, but, there's the basic outline there. The party has two months to stop Mad Scientist or they will likely be casualties of war as the army of Monster Z's tear them apart.

Not every adventure has to be a sit back and do nothing adventure for the party. Having active NPC's is NOT railroading. Passive, or barely reactive adventures work, but they are not the be all of adventure design. X1 is a passive design. There is almost nothing you can do to make the adventure change shape. You go to area 15, you meet the brontosaurus. Go there again, you meet Mr. Bront again. Kill the Bront, and the encounter area ceases to exist and becomes yet another random encounter area.

It works, but, it's not the only way to design adventures.

 

[Elfdart]

So, Elfdart, it is perfectly acceptable for the DM to strip away a cleric's powers if the DM deems that the player has stepped outside of his alignment. How is that not leading a player around by the nose? Sure, the god isn't saying, "Go here, do this" but he is saying, "If you do this, you will suffer! Don't do it!"

Enforcing the rules is not the same as rigging the game. Just as a referee who calls "holding" is different from one who has made up his mind who will win and gropes for anything to get the result he wants.

Yes, it's an extreme case, but, then again, you're the one saying that there should be NO influence upon the PC's outside of the PC's themselves. If that's not what you are saying, could you please state what you are saying?

It's extremely dishonest to accuse a person of saying something he never said.

As I pointed out before, the DM should set the date, time, place and opposition. He shouldn't tell the players how to go about the adventure. In the example I gave before, if the party should (for whatever reason) decide to scale the outer wall of the Moathouse in T1 rather than sneak through the gate, and the DM says: "No, you must approach from the south and go through the gate." when there's no logical reason why the PCs couldn't scale the wall, it's a railroad.

The only person at the table that truly knows if he's railroading or not is the DM. Shouldn't any definition of railroading center on the DM?

In other words, yes, the players may suspect railroading, but only the DM knows for sure since the players are not in possession of all the facts. Basing the definition solely on the players is ridiculous.

Players can usually tell. Sure it's not always as obvious as the infamous case of the Tyrannosaurus attacking low-level PCs who leave the path. But players usually know when they're being railroaded.

It has no value since the player's perception may be entirely wrong.

A perception can't be wrong. Look up the word. It means insight, not opinion. When you perceive it means you have detected or taken notice of something, NOT that you have an opinion of something.

Yes, they might think they are being railroaded, but, in fact it is simply the game being played that is reaching a particular conclusion. Yes, you missed this round with a 16 but hit last round. Yes, I might be railroading, but, not necessarily. Until you know either way, it is not fair to the table to scream railroad.

If encounters are rigged, it's no longer a game. It's a DM's power trip. The simplest way to tell is for a player to ask himself or herself "Would any of this have turned out differently if I hadn't played?" If the answer is No, it's most likely a railroad.

For example: A DM decides for whatever reason that the party WILL be taken prisoner in an ambush. So he arranges an ambush. But the PCs defeat it fair and square. The charm spell didn't work because they all passed their saving throws. The guards were manhandled by the party. A combination of luck and skill carried the party through. Does the DM just decide "The spell works on you anyway even though you made the save." or "I know you hit the evil magician but..." [translation: "I'm cheating to save this NPC because I'm using him later and I didn't think the party would pummel him like this."] At that point the players can hear the whistle and see the tracks -it's a railroad.

I notice you didn't answer my question about the lord's invincible guards or the almighty ship captain:

Here's a setting where lipping off to the lord get's your head cut off. Where you have classes that are expected to KILL themselves if they disobey their lord.

Does the head just pop off? Or does the lord send his guards to cut it off? Do these guards automatically get to cut it off, or do you play out the combat? Do the guards automatically win? If yes, it's a railroad. It's also rather stupid, since if this lord has such w@nked-out powers and invincible guards, why does he need the PCs to do something for him?

What happens in one of these rigged games when the samurai says no, he's not going to commit seppuku and kills any NPCs who try to make him? Does a bolt of lightning get him?

 

[Hussar]

I didn't answer because you changed the situation. I made the point that playing in Oriental Adventures means that you may be playing a character who should kill himself if he fails. That you choose to ignore that is up to you, but, now we're into player fiat.

As far as the captain, you again changed the situation. I asked if it was ok for the captain of the ship to order the players to do something. NOT that the captain absolutely had to force them. If you would like to discuss what I actually said instead of reinventing the question, we can work with that.

However, since I agree with most of what you say, then I don't know why you're jumping up and down. Yes, if the DM is rigging the game, that's railroading. No one has ever denied that.

However, I do disagree that just because a player perceives that he has been railroaded that it means that he has. Since the player is coming from imperfect information, his perceptions could be entirely false.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

This may be true, but it's still a bad situation. Players like to make choices that affect the world and the story. If they think they can't do that, then your game has problems, whether or not they in fact cannot.

I think that the way the DM handles these things is very important.

For example, in a published adventure I was running recently, a situation that looked very railroady to my players came up.

A group of doppelgangers was framing the party for a crime. One of the PCs, who can cast charm person as a spell like ability 3x/day, (IE, without gestures, etc) tried to charm the accuser, not knowing he was a doppelganger. He used all three charm attempts, and on the third, the doppelganger failed his save.

But here's the thing: Doppelgangers are immune to charm effects. And none of the PCs (or the players, for that matter) knew that the NPC in question was a doppelganger.

So I said to the player, "you feel your magic overcome his resistance, but for some reason his demeanor doesn't change. I then gave him a high-dc knowledge arcana check (which he failed -- if he'd passed I would have mentioned that he recalled reading about some creatures whom charm was ineffective against who could look like humans). At that point I simply said, "it seems that there's more to this merchant than meets the eye".

It came down to opposed diplomacy checks when the guards showed up. The PCs lost, and were arrested.

It helped that the true situation resolved itself in the same game session. Once the PCs knew they were dealing with doppelgangers, everything made sense. I don't like to leave situations that might be perceived as 'railroady' hanging past one play session.

I think I have a fair bit of trust with my players, because in general I work very hard to run a very non-railroady game. So when the odd situation comes up that feels railroady, they work with it.

Ken

However, I do disagree that just because a player perceives that he has been railroaded that it means that he has. Since the player is coming from imperfect information, his perceptions could be entirely false.

 

[happyelf]

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.

My problem with the 'logic' arugment is that it's arbitary. Many, many bad GM's defend their bad GMing as utterly logical and consistant. But that doesn't make it fair, or make it fair to control the players. You tell me: are endless charm spells fair? Are they not railroading? They're logical, from a certain point of view.

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

But they're still instances of a loss of power, and that is an issue each GM must confront. GM's can't brush that off because it's 'by the book'.

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.

Is it a railroad if the GM arbitarily puts them in there. And who's to say he has not?

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.

Would you agree that many of the more abusive or fun-damaging cases of PC-to-PC agression have at their core, power issues? When one PC bullies another PC, in a way wich is bad for the game, I find it's often got to do with the player doing the bullying having issues and liking the idea of exerting power over others at the table. I think that's a mindset that has a lot in common with that of many railroading GM's- not all of them of course, railroading is caused by a lot of different motives. But Again, we're talking about power issues.

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 think that what a player wants is a vital issue in the game, and if a definintion touches on that, it's a good thing. Furthemore, when we talk about choice issues, power issues, we're talking about issues central to the game.

And again, the hobby is imprecise. The enjoyment of the game is ambiguous and subjective. It would be imprecise to try and user terminology that does not take that into account.

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.

I think that power and choices have a lot to do with player happyness. The player of a constantly charmed or trapdoored PC is unhappy in much the same way as a PC stuck in whatever other predictament qualifies as railroading. Likewise, for a GM or group trying to solve that problem, much of the same broad advice applies. And because of this I feel the same, or similar, terms should apply when describing the problem.

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.

Yeah I totally agree that the 'empty game' or 'wasteland' is as bad as the railroad. I used to think the railroad was more widespread, but I think they're both very well-known.

As an aside, what I find interesting is that despite the fact that they're on opposite ends of the spectrum, they sometimes have some odd things in common.

For instance- ambiguity and miscomunication. In both a railroad, and a wasteland, the players often aren't sure what the GM wants from them. In a railroad, they get faced with a wall, and they're not sure wether the GM wants them to try and climb over, or turn around and go the other way. In a 'wasteland', they get faced with a setting, and they're not sure wether they're really supposed to just do what they want, or if the GM wants them to track down a particular plotline.

In both cases I find that GM's leaning into such errors do better if they spend more time speaking to their players about what everybody actually wants out of the game. Sometimes this can be a problem because it results in ireconcilable problems with conflicting play styles, but I generally think such discussions are for the best.

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.

Yeah, this is my point. Different play-styles result in different kinds of game. In some games things are quite linear, and everyone is fine with that. In others, players won't abide by a lack of choice in an area they consider important (for instance some players are ok with their PC's being beaten up or captured, but they can't stand coersion-like effects like charm spells of 'social-fu', because they feel the mind of their character should be their turf alone.)

All this varies, but the primary, the paramount factor is preference.

Sure, preference isn't perfect- some players might have preferences or expectations wich are not realistic, or unfair on the GM. OTOH, there are variant 'freeform' modes that some people enjoy simply because they like makig choices in a way that the conventional player-GM model does not allow for.

But in any event, preferences are still at the core of why players have a problem with this kind of stuff.

They have this problem, because they're not getting to make the kind of choices they enjoy making.

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?

Not any loss, potentially any given instance of loss, as defined by the player's preferences.

And franky I don't think some people are trying at all to undrstand what I mean. When I see people posting things like "Oh so you mean I can never use charm spells or vampires!", that tells me they're trying to misunderstand. I think i've been pretty clear, despite the typos.