Telling a story vs. railroading

[Montague68]

Note that railroading and story are not mutually exclusive. You can be telling a story, and still railroading the party.

If the Baron sends out fifty minotaurs and a pair of Wiz20s to apprehend a 5th-level party, and tells them "go on this quest or die," that is railroading-- even if it makes perfect sense for plot reasons, and even if the DM is playing the NPCs with total objectivity. The players still have no choice to make; it's do the quest or roll up new characters. They are stuck on rails, going in one direction with no turnoffs, and that's what railroading means.

Hmmm... but what if player choices resulted in the wizards and minotaurs forcing the players hand? Is that still a railroad?

In my new FR campaign the PC's found a dead body in a goblin lair surrounded by dozens of dead goblins. With the body they found a letter addressed to a prominent NPC in the nearest town and a Harper pin. They showed the Harper pin to the NPC (who is a Senior Harper operative) and since the party can now tie a known Harper to him the NPC has forced the PC's to work with him, or be imprisoned in a Harper stronghold until his mission is over.

Is that railroading? I didn't force the PC's to take the Harper pin, nor did I force them to take it to the NPC. In my view they've caught themselves up in events beyond their control by their own choices. The players willingly decided to work with the Harpers anyway so the agent didn't even have to threaten, but what if they didn't want to?

 

[sniffles]

Hmmm... but what if player choices resulted in the wizards and minotaurs forcing the players hand? Is that still a railroad?

In my new FR campaign the PC's found a dead body in a goblin lair surrounded by dozens of dead goblins. With the body they found a letter addressed to a prominent NPC in the nearest town and a Harper pin. They showed the Harper pin to the NPC (who is a Senior Harper operative) and since the party can now tie a known Harper to him the NPC has forced the PC's to work with him, or be imprisoned in a Harper stronghold until his mission is over.

Is that railroading? I didn't force the PC's to take the Harper pin, nor did I force them to take it to the NPC. In my view they've caught themselves up in events beyond their control by their own choices. The players willingly decided to work with the Harpers anyway so the agent didn't even have to threaten, but what if they didn't want to?

I think by Quasqueton's definition - and mine - this is not railroading. What would be railroading would be if you said to them after they found the pin, "Okay, you take the pin to the NPC and agree to work with him" without asking the players what they wanted to do.

 

[rounser]

Ya, that's when people yell rail road but there is actually three steps that make a railroad not just the first two.

1) DM comes up with plot
2) Players choose not to follow it
3) DM forces them to follow it

Not necessarily true. A lot of campaigns are run on the "this is the adventure the DM has prepared for tonight" assumption, so players don't bother to go to step 2. It's an unspoken agreement to go along with the play style of the DM, or the published adventure path he's running, or what-have-you...because everyone knows that if you challenge it, there'll be no game.

It's still railroading, though.

 

[rounser]

The term “railroad” or “railroading” gets thrown around a lot, but I think most uses/abuses of it are just for insults.

No - or at least I don't use it this way. It's just a descriptor of a campaign style where what adventure comes after the other is predetermined, and PCs have little or no impact on the direction of the campaign arc, because no matter what they do usually short of TPK, adventure B will be followed by adventure C. The campaign has a linear, set course of one adventure after another that the PCs cannot alter...it's on rails.

All of the adventure paths, and countless homebrew campaigns fit this description. That doesn't mean they're not fun. Arguably they could be improved by not being railroad campaigns, but that would mean either a lot more prep work and/or extensive improvisation for the DM.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

railroading

Wow, Quasqueton, thanks for the thread!

I must admit to being one of those players who is
sensitive about railroading.

In my youth, I played D&D and RuneQuest with an
otherwise excellent GM , who had quite the propensity
to railroad.

He had a wonderful gift for description, and created a
detailed , believable world with interesting plots.

The thing was, he was very attached to those plots.
And sometimes, when we failed to show interest, he
would intervene via NPCs (who were always
oh-so-mysterious and far more powerful than us) to get
us 'on track'.

If we didn't want to explore the ruins, we would get
in trouble somewhere, then get rescued by an NPC, who
would then ask our assistance in exploring the ruins.
And so on.

Over the years, he matured as a GM, and got cured of
both his propensity to railroad and his attachment to
powerful NPCs as a vehicle to get his way in the game.


Railroading is bad because the DM is taking the
ability to drive the story away from the players.

I think you're right when you say that linear
adventures don't necessarily involve railroading, to a
point. But linear adventures, like railroading, still
force the PCs onto a particular sequence of events,
and hence a particular story.

For example, in my previous campaign (which was a
homebrew) I created many, many site-based encounters
and lairs, then combined them with two site-based
dungeons (tomb of absynthor and rappan athuk) and put
them in a wilderness area. Then I started the
campaign with the PCs in the wilderness area.

Each week, the PCs decided what they did. Sometimes
their actions were dictated by their situation (such
as when they antagonized an orcus temple and got into
a protracted series of assaults and counterassaults),
but generally they chose every week where they wanted
to explore, who they wanted to fight. Because I had
tons of prepared material, I was able to give them
actual choice, not just the illusion of choice.


Now, I'm running the Age of Worms campaign. It is
excellent, but it is a different beast. I know
exactly what sequence of adventures the party will
participate in. It's a well constructed campaign,
with lots of atmospheric encounters, but the players
mostly have an illusion of choice, not real choice.
They will first play 'The Wispering Cairn', then
'Three Faces of Evil', and so on. They are on a set
of tracks.

The first way is a lot more work, because you have to
write way more material than you'll actually use. The
second way is easier, and much easier to
commercialize.

Ken

 

[Agent Oracle]

I'll give you guys a classic example of railroading:

Final Fantasy 7. Aeris dies. no matter what you do, no matter how you play and how many buffs you give to Aeris, she dies. It's not something the player has any control over.

Conversely, In other games, like, let's say, the Fire Emblem series. Characters die in that game all the time, as a matter of fact, there is a staunch no resurrection policy. But, you can keep everyone alive if you play it straight. Furthermore (in at least once series) you are given choices about which battles you wish to fight. Within the limited framework of a turn-based strategy game, (and japanese RPG) that's pretty good.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Is that railroading? I didn't force the PC's to take the Harper pin, nor did I force them to take it to the NPC. In my view they've caught themselves up in events beyond their control by their own choices. The players willingly decided to work with the Harpers anyway so the agent didn't even have to threaten, but what if they didn't want to?

That certainly wasn't railroading. As for the players being railroaded if he had threatened them? Nope. I'd have my character look him straight in the eye and say: "You have to sleep sometime." (If they had then had their free will taken from them so that nothing they could do would get them out of it, that's railroading!) I have used the old saw about not cooperating means no game tonight, and had it used on me. No hard feelings, it happens. Technically it's railroading, but since the GM doesn't feel that s/he has enough inspiration to do a good job it's more of a social thing. IMO.

 

[SteveC]

The best way not to railroad is to create characters and situations that your players care about. That's really all you need.

If you start with a pre-made plot (such as an adventure path) tell your group about it and let them make characters who will care about it. If they don't like the idea, don't run the adventure path. Of course, this works better before you buy one, but still...

If you're going to create the game yourself, let your players tell you what they want the game to be about and listen to them. Build character beliefs and conflicts right into the game.

The true master (which I am most decidedly not) walks the line between these two extremes: he has a plot in mind, or more appropriately a direction he wants the game to go, but that direction largely comes from and is influenced by the players.

In the original post, if characters care about the baron, or if they secretly want the gem, then there's a built in reason to adventure. If some characters want to advance their position with the baron, and some want to keep the gem to finance their own enterprises, so much the better.

--Steve

 

[Elfdart]

You can spot a railroading fairly easily. When you find yourself asking "If the DM has already decided what's going to happen and there's nothing my character can do to change that, why does he need me here?", you know you're being railroaded.

A setup is different from a railroad. A setup just establishes the scenario. A railroad makes the PCs walk through it under the pretense that they're playing a game when in fact it's just self indulgence on the part of the DM.

The worst offenders are David Cook's modules. His re-write of A1-4 (one railroad in A3 wasn't enough for him, apparently), the Vecna module, Greyhawk Wars and some lame OA module demonstrate severe consternation that players won't follow his script. So the amount of railroading in those works put Grand Central Station to shame.

For any game to be fun, there has to be a chance that you can lose. In my opinion, it's a lot more fun if you are likely to lose, since tough wins are more rewarding. It also helps if you're not herded like sheep. If a DM has already made up his mind that you will win this scenario or lose that one without even playing it out, he doesn't need the players at all, does he?

 

[Akrasia]

I think a useful distinction is between 'site-based' and 'plot-based' adventures.

A 'site-based' adventure describes a location (a city, some wilderness, a dungeon, etc.), and lets the PCs explore it as they see fit. The 'story' emerges from the interaction between the PCs' freely chosen actions and the environment in which they act. Good 'classic' examples of this kind of adventure include B2 (Keep on the Borderlands) and L1 (Secret of Bone Hill).

I have a hard time imagining how a 'site-based' adventure could be a railroad.

A 'plot-based' adventure describes a series of events that lead up to some final climax. In a good 'plot-based' adventure there are multiple paths to that final climax, whereas in a bad on there is only one route (and the PCs are 'forced' down that route).

A 'plot-based' adventure can be a railroad, depending on how many variable routes there are for PCs to take towards the climax of the story. An example of a 'bad' railroad adventure (IMO) is D1 (the first Dragonlance modules for AD&D), and N2 ('The Forest Oracle'). I think N1 ('Cult of the Reptile God') is a good 'plot-based' adventure, as are my two favourite modules of all time: B10 ('Night's Dark Terror') and UK4 ('When A Star Falls').

Some adventures mix elements of both. E.g. the G1-3 and D1-3 series.