Telling a story vs. railroading

[Montague68]

Not only is this railroading, but I think it's pretty dodgy that you'd describe this as a result of 'player choice' when the players had no idea what consequences would result from their actions. They didn't choose the situation, the situation chose them, or rather, you did. Saying it was 'by their own choices' is as valid as saying that if a PC stops at at a roadside shrine to pray to their god, it's 'by their own choices' if they're killed when it suddenly explodes. You didn't force the PC to stop and kneel at the shrine, but that's hardly a relevant choice.

In fact you're quite mistaken about the players having no idea of the consequences. The players debated at length about getting involved with the Harpers, and were well aware of the ramifications of the letter and pin they found. They had enough smarts to know that an agent for a somewhat good but secretive organization that finds his cover blown by a group of inexperienced adventurers might just not let them go off into the sunset. Now if after the discussion the players sold the Harper pin, ripped up the letter and gone ahead and the Harper kidnaps them and forces them to work for him - that's classic railroading IMO.

As for the shrine, that's not railroading that's just bad DM'ing. The consequences don't follow logically, unless of course the PC's hear rumors of a madman planting traps at roadside shrines.

 

[howandwhy99]

My initial response to reading this is that it was meant as a joke. But others have said similar things (just not in as much detail).

The idea that a DM must come to each game session either with two dozen potential adventures, ready to run at the whim of the PCs, or with none at all, ready to make up everything at the whim of the PCs, is absurd.

You either burn out a DM quickly, or you don’t play much RPGs.

There is a difference between a DM preparing (or buying) an adventure, making plot hooks for the specific PCs, and expecting the PCs to go on the adventure, and a DM forcing you to go on an adventure, against the Player’s will, and orchestrating a pre-determined outcome. If you don’t understand that there is a difference, we simply can’t continue a discussion on the subject because our definitions are as different as saying black is white.

I know Quasqueton has stopped posting, but in case he's still reading this thread I thought I would give a response.

I've played under 2 masterful DMs these past few years and now I'm running my own campaign. All of us have run the game in a "limitless freedom" manner by one method or another and I can say it works very well. I personally enjoy it more than any other style I've played, so I thought I would share. It seems to have the fewest limits on PC action and requires little force beyond defining the game. Of course, it requires a good bit of inspiration for and by the players, but it also offers a style of play I think others do not.

Most RPGs do not operate under this freeform paradigm, but that's why I like D&D. It puts the players in the driver's seat. The play is more like that of generations past. Instead of toys built to entertain and then discard, it gives toys made for the players to entertain themselves. It asks for creativity and an initiative by all involved. Yet, like childhood play, it gives as much as it's given. I think the closest analogy would be to Legos today. (Only any Lego piece imaginable can be added to the pile)

A deliberate narrative is possible too, if the players desire. I think it maps best to other newer narrative games, but the situational parameters are really just made up in-character as we go along. On the other hand, I believe "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" mentioned earlier is a considerable stumbling block when plots are written as PC actions and not NPC actions.

All this talk on my part is a little self-conscious when really all it is is Fun. Just sit down and play. I may make it sound a little too good to be true, but a little proactive effort goes a long way.

In terms of how to design such a campaign, others have mentioned my method isn't the only way. I posted a poll HERE. It's heartening to know others offer multiple adventures in their games as well. The work doesn't have to be overwhelming. Lots of folks create and endlessly tinker with their homebrew settings. Others create and tinker with their reams of house rules. I happen to like campaigns with a wide expanse of adventures and neat ideas. I create most beforehand, add as needed, and tinker as I go along. Once a piece is "in the world" I need only dig deeper and advance it like a Swiss clock.

Wilderlands mentioned earlier is a great example of a setting in this style. CSIO maps well too for large cities. Both are chock full of adventure. All a DM needs to do is drop a few preferred modules nearby the Start, fully detail that area, and sketch in the others nearby. Just expand between sessions as needed.

I use a published setting and published adventures to save time, anyways. If a DM only has time for one adventure to prepare, I'm sorry for them. But it isn't absurd to be able to do otherwise.

 

[happyelf]

Then define something that isn't railroading, in your eyes; also, assume the players aren't necessarily the sort who will pick the game up by its ears and drag it along if not given clear direction...and even if they were, they'd try to drag it in 5 different directions at once.

Once again, some people are fine with railroading or linear plots. Most people are fine withe GM fiat in some form.

But that doesn't mean everyone is, or that the people who aren't are being 'unrealistic' or overly demanding. I run a reasonably non-linear style of game. I do that. I improvise a lot, I base future adventures on PC actions and motives and agenda. I do that. It is not impossible, far from it. A lot of people in this thread are denying that this style is possible, but lots of GM's do it all the time.

And if they enjoyed the game in the meantime, where's the harm?

That assumes they do, and that is often not the case. And another common variation is that they 'like the game fine', and only realise they weren't having much fun when they find another game more to their liking. All of this comes from GM's unwilling to look at what they're doing and consider that maybe they're leaning on player choice a little too hard for the group they have.

Realistically speaking, if you intend to tell any story or run any predesigned adventures at all, there's only so much real choice the players can have. The trick is to maintain the *illusion* of choice, and work your story into the choices they make.

I completly disagree. I have run a lot of games in my day and I find the 'false choice' idea to be counterproductive at best.

Real choice is important. Evne if the player isn't going to have much choice in the game, they should at least have a choice as to what kind of game they play in, rather than having the GM mislead them as to the game's contents and style.

The GM has a say, but so do the players, and it's important to genuinly work their say into the game, both by accepting their preferences, and operating based on them if you agree to do so (explicitly or otherwise).

That means if a player says 'I want choice', you not only accept that, but, if you choose to play with them, you should genuinly make their choices matter, not simply lie to them and pretend that they do. No matter how clever a deciever a GM is, there is a vast different in the social dynamics involved in real choice, as opposed to ilusory choice.

I'm not saying there isn't an illusory or non-trasparent component to Gming, of course there is- but a player who really wants choice, wants their choices to really matter.

It's the DM's game; if you think you can do better, run your own game. Simple, really.

I can do better. Wich tells me any other GM can do better, too.

The problem that I'm seeing here is that we're defining railroading so broadly that it has no meaning.

I disagree, and I think this is a pretty empty criticism. What does this mean anyway? Does the word 'water' or 'fluid' have no meaning? They're pretty broad words. They work fine.

The real problem is that railroading is being defined too broadly for people who railroad to be comfortable with. They would rather say "I don't see X as railroading" and ignore the real issue, that being player choice.

When people say things like 'charm spells are not railroading', they are saying "I can take player choice away, and not only is it ok, but I don't have to consider it part of this thing lots and lots of player complain about".

Any decent GM should not let themself off the hook about issues like this. They should keep and eye on their style, and chek themself to see if they're going too far, in a way their players are not enjoying.

If a setting like Ravenloft is railroading, then, well, pretty much anything is.

No, it's not. People who run a ravenloft game must accept that they are taking away some of the player's choices. Potentially all of them, depending on how it's run. They might wish to brush that off with a semantic argument, but that doesn't change the effect that has on their players.

It doesn't matter if there are four choices or one in this definition. The fact that there are specific choices dictated to the party means its a railroad.

Correct! And that is the definition. The more choices you take away, the fewer choices they have. Everyone does this to some degree, but each choice removed results in less choice. The problem is that when people dodge the idea of railroading, they are dodging the reality that some people will find that a big problem, even if the as the GM , "don't define that as railroading".

Player: "hey our PC's keep getting charmed by every mage we meet, and we kinda don't like it-"

GM: "Sorry! I don't see that as railroading! It's logical that a high level mage could cast charm person, and you agreed to play a game with high level mages in it, so it's not railroading! Now get back to doing what your new NPC friend tells you!"

Sure, it's less of a railroad if there are more choices, but, under this definition, it's a railroad nonetheless. It doesn't matter how many tracks there are, the simple existence of tracks is enough to say railroad.

It can be more or less of a railroad, a game can involve more or less choice. But it's still a railroad if it goes too far, and it's still a railroad even if a GM who is in the habit of removing a certain kind of choice finds the term objectionable.

However, if you define railroading as an action taken by the adventure designer or the DM to protect a particular result, then it becomes a much more useful term to use.

That definition is every bit as general as any definition. After all the GM always has some kind of result in mind when limiting choice, even if it's a very broad one.

People are playing semanatics here or trying to link railroading to a specific kind of control, but it's not- it's about removing too much player choice, where 'too much' is defined by player preference, overt or otherwise.

How much choice-removel is bad, and what kinds of choice removal, these are issues of player preference. But that's the deal- railroading is when the GM takes 'too much' away.

In fact you're quite mistaken about the players having no idea of the consequences. The players debated at length about getting involved with the Harpers, and were well aware of the ramifications of the letter and pin they found. They had enough smarts to know that an agent for a somewhat good but secretive organization that finds his cover blown by a group of inexperienced adventurers might just not let them go off into the sunset. Now if after the discussion the players sold the Harper pin, ripped up the letter and gone ahead and the Harper kidnaps them and forces them to work for him - that's classic railroading IMO.

Ok, I'm sorry, I made poor assumptions about their level of information. Obviously I am not harper material

As for the shrine, that's not railroading that's just bad DM'ing. The consequences don't follow logically, unless of course the PC's hear rumors of a madman planting traps at roadside shrines.

I agree, that said, 'logic' is a slippery slope. I can think of a lot of situations where the GM thinks something is obvious, but it's actually pretty arcane or difficult for the players to understand. Comunication is far from perfect at most gaming tables.

Likewise, even if people understand that say, there are harsh consequences for going into the evil temple, they might not realise what that means. A party who are happy to die in glorious battle against evil, could instead find themself charmed into serving as baggage-porters in the legion of evil.

Additionally, the GM might rule that something is a logical result based on some pretty dodgy 'logic', such as the rle of an uber-powerful NPC in the situation. I think a lot of bad GM's calim that their rules are quire logical based for instance on their reading of a setting(the oWOD setting springs to mind as an example of this), but that doesn't mean they're not taking away player choice, often unfairly so.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That means if a player says 'I want choice', you not only accept that, but, if you choose to play with them, you should genuinly make their choices matter, not simply lie to them and pretend that they do. No matter how clever a deciever a GM is, there is a vast different in the social dynamics involved in real choice, as opposed to ilusory choice.

Agreed.

The real problem is that railroading is being defined too broadly for people who railroad to be comfortable with. They would rather say "I don't see X as railroading" and ignore the real issue, that being player choice.

When people say things like 'charm spells are not railroading', they are saying "I can take player choice away, and not only is it ok, but I don't have to consider it part of this thing lots and lots of player complain about".

Any decent GM should not let themself off the hook about issues like this. They should keep and eye on their style, and chek themself to see if they're going too far, in a way their players are not enjoying.

Disagree.

Players should be granted legitimate choices. However, the DM has the right to put legitimate constraints on those choices. This can be due to setup (no warforged ninjas in this world) or due to circumstance (paralysis due to ghoul, charm spell cast by foe, sliding door that blocks egress, death). Under no circumstances does the game devolve to a position where the players are allowed limitless choices or it's a railroad.

Players liking or disliking a circumstance as it occurs is not sufficient either. Players may not like the taxman trying to collect, but that doesn't mean that they don't get enough compensation when they finally get to put the screws to the officious little weasel.

No player likes to have his character enthralled by an enemy. Nonetheless, an enemy with that capability will certainly use it rather than be slain.

If a ghoul hits you and you fail your save, you're paralyzed. Sure, it sucks. Too bad. The game doesn't bend because otherwise you'll go pout in the corner.

You can claim that "Wanna help me playtest this adventure?" is a railroad, but I don't believe that is what is meant by the term when 99% of the gaming public uses it. It is certainly not what is meant when I use it.

And there's the difference between the definition of "fluid" (which is very constrained when set off against an alternative, such as "gas" or "solid") and this sort of definition of "railroad": to some degree, player choice is curtailed within the game system because of the nature of the game itself. Unless you define what sort of limitations on player choice constitute railroading, every game is a railroad. There is nothing in opposition of that term. With nothing to compare and contrast against, the term becomes meaningless.

The connotation of "railroading" is negative, and therefore one assumes that the limitations implied must also be negative in as universally acceptable a way as possible. In other words, railroading is not simple limitation but illegitimate limitation. Again, this may not be the definition that you use, but it is the definition that is commonly used.

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

....

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'​

Now, we may argue about what limitations are legitimate, and which are not, and that might be fruitful. But suggesting that any limitation is railroading is, IMHO, useless. Even if "lots and lots of players" shared that definition, I would only DM for the few who did not.

RC

 

[Lanefan]

That means if a player says 'I want choice', you not only accept that, but, if you choose to play with them, you should genuinly make their choices matter, not simply lie to them and pretend that they do. No matter how clever a deciever a GM is, there is a vast different in the social dynamics involved in real choice, as opposed to ilusory choice.

I'm not saying there isn't an illusory or non-trasparent component to Gming, of course there is- but a player who really wants choice, wants their choices to really matter.

Provided the players are willing to *make* choices and proactively drive the story, then fine. And if you're lucky enough to have such players, and have them actually agree on what those choices will be, even better.

That definition is every bit as general as any definition. After all the GM always has some kind of result in mind when limiting choice, even if it's a very broad one.

How much choice-removel is bad, and what kinds of choice removal, these are issues of player preference. But that's the deal- railroading is when the GM takes 'too much' away.

It almost sounds like in your ideal game the players would collectively railroad the DM into running what they want, irregardless of what the DM has actually designed...which means the DM has to pretty much wing everything within the session and prepare for anything in between times. Me, I'd rather just place my trust in the DM to run a game I'll enjoy, and take it from there.

Lanefan

 

[happyelf]

Players should be granted legitimate choices. However, the DM has the right to put legitimate constraints on those choices.

But he is still limimting choices.

This can be due to setup (no warforged ninjas in this world) or due to circumstance (paralysis due to ghoul, charm spell cast by foe, sliding door that blocks egress, death). Under no circumstances does the game devolve to a position where the players are allowed limitless choices or it's a railroad.

Nobody is saying that. Likewise, under no circumstances should the unwelcome reduction of player choice be justified via semantics. 'Legitimate' is a matter of opinion, instant death is a pretty obvious example of this. Some people might claim that it's legit to kill a PC by gating a balor onto them, but it's hardly self-evident, and if the player still has a big problem with it, that's still a bad thing!

Players liking or disliking a circumstance as it occurs is not sufficient either. Players may not like the taxman trying to collect, but that doesn't mean that they don't get enough compensation when they finally get to put the screws to the officious little weasel.

No. The Gm comes up with the circumstances, the reality, and if the player doens't like it, that's a problem. The Gm may feel it's perfectly legit for the PC's to be mind-controlled by their petNPC for a couple of sessions, but it doens't matter if the players don't like it. They still don't like it, it's still a lack of choice they don't like.

No player likes to have his character enthralled by an enemy. Nonetheless, an enemy with that capability will certainly use it rather than be slain.

Doesn't matter. It's still the GM making the call, and it's still a matter of wether the players are enjoying the game, and the way the GM is effecting their choices.

If a ghoul hits you and you fail your save, you're paralyzed. Sure, it sucks. Too bad. The game doesn't bend because otherwise you'll go pout in the corner.

And it sucks if you roll up a first level character and elminster appears in their house, chokeslams them through the table, and then sets their groin on fire. Too bad! It's by the rules!

Any GM can rationalise any decision they make, or action they take. A good GM realises that all their actions impact the fun of the game, and that their rationalisations are not sacrosant or self-justified.

What matters is how the players feel about the game- there are no doubt a vast number of players who would not enjoy a session in wich they were paralised or helpless for most of the action, and only a poor Gm brushes that off if it occurs 'by the rules' or for a logical reasons.

You can claim that "Wanna help me playtest this adventure?" is a railroad, but I don't believe that is what is meant by the term when 99% of the gaming public uses it. It is certainly not what is meant when I use it.

That has nothing to do wiht anything I said.

And there's the difference between the definition of "fluid" (which is very constrained when set off against an alternative, such as "gas" or "solid") and this sort of definition of "railroad": to some degree, player choice is curtailed within the game system because of the nature of the game itself. Unless you define what sort of limitations on player choice constitute railroading, every game is a railroad. There is nothing in opposition of that term. With nothing to compare and contrast against, the term becomes meaningless.

There is something opposed to the term- choice. The whole issue here is the balance between the player's choice, and the GM's choice.

That is the issue here, what people want, what happens in the game, and how the two interact. Focusing on semantics neglects the fact that this issue is inherenlty one of prefernce, wich varies from player to play, GM to Gm, group to group.

There's nothing meaningless about discussing the real issues.

The connotation of "railroading" is negative, and therefore one assumes that the limitations implied must also be negative in as universally acceptable a way as possible.

One does no such thing. If I think somethig is tacky, does 'tacky' have to be universal? Of course not. It's a matter of preference.

In other words, railroading is not simple limitation but illegitimate limitation. Again, this may not be the definition that you use, but it is the definition that is commonly used.

No, it's not. My definition is more accurate than your own, or at the very least, they have equal merit. Railroading is not limimted by the criteria you guys are setting out, wether they be based on charm spells, campaign setting, or any other distinction you may seek. Railroading is simply when a player has a choice taken away, and doesn't like it, then they go complain on the internet and call it railroading. That's railroading.

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

....

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'​

Now, we may argue about what limitations are legitimate, and which are not, and that might be fruitful. But suggesting that any limitation is railroading is, IMHO, useless. Even if "lots and lots of players" shared that definition, I would only DM for the few who did not.
RC

This only proves my point. You ignore the real and common usage of the term, and instead try and implant your own.

The reality is that railroading relates to any loss of power or choice wich the player finds objectionable. That is how people use the term.

There is no universal standard for legitimacy, it's a matter of preference, and the tastes of the individuals involved.

Provided the players are willing to *make* choices and proactively drive the story, then fine. And if you're lucky enough to have such players, and have them actually agree on what those choices will be, even better.

And even more, different players can be proactive in different ways.

It almost sounds like in your ideal game the players would collectively railroad the DM into running what they want, irregardless of what the DM has actually designed...which means the DM has to pretty much wing everything within the session and prepare for anything in between times. Me, I'd rather just place my trust in the DM to run a game I'll enjoy, and take it from there.
Lanefan

That's not the case at all. The GM's prefernces matter, but so do those of the players.

There are a lot of ways to run less linear games, but at no point is the idea to enslave the GM. Actually I find that a lot of improv methods, and games with more player input end up reducing the workload of the GM.

 

[Hussar]

No. The Gm comes up with the circumstances, the reality, and if the player doens't like it, that's a problem. The Gm may feel it's perfectly legit for the PC's to be mind-controlled by their petNPC for a couple of sessions, but it doens't matter if the players don't like it. They still don't like it, it's still a lack of choice they don't like.

Picking one out of the forest here.

So, basically, you're saying that any time the DM does something that the players don't like, he's railroading? If the DM has any consequences to the player's actions, he's railroading. Players should be allowed to do any action and no consequences should ever be assigned?

Sure, the players don't like it when their PC dies, get's possessed or whatever. But, why should that automatically equal railroading?

Player: I rolled a 16, do I hit?
DM: No, sorry, you needed an 18.
Player: I'm not having fun. You're railroading. I choose to hit the bad guy and kill him.

Water has an extremely specific definition. Two parts oxygen one part hydrogen. Pretty tricky to find a more simply defined word than that. By using an incredibly broad definition of railroad that includes "anything the players don't like" removes any meaning from the word.

 

[happyelf]

Picking one out of the forest here.

So, basically, you're saying that any time the DM does something that the players don't like, he's railroading?

Your'e acting like this is absurd, but one of the primary components of the GM-player relationship is that of power. Narritive control. Fiat. This is the fundmental nature of the GM status at the table. It's about power.

If the GM goes 'too far', that's railroading. It doesn't matter how he goes too far, wether it's but mind controling npcs, or sudden monster attacks to punish deviation form the plot, or threats from uber NPCs, or endless dungeon corridors, or "your character is an X they would not do that", if he stomps on player choice too much, in a way they don't like, it's railroading.

If the DM has any consequences to the player's actions, he's railroading. Players should be allowed to do any action and no consequences should ever be assigned?

I'm not saying anything like that.

As i've already said, it's a matter of preference, and how often choices are limited.

Sure, the players don't like it when their PC dies, get's possessed or whatever. But, why should that automatically equal railroading?

Because if it goes to far, it obviously is. Are you honestly saying you see no argument for posession- hyjacking the PC- to qualify as railroading?

Player: I rolled a 16, do I hit?
DM: No, sorry, you needed an 18.
Player: I'm not having fun. You're railroading. I choose to hit the bad guy and kill him.

Here's some alternative takes on the situation:

Player: Wow, it's funny how we always need a higher number than we roll. . .
or,
Player: Wow, it's funny how we always come up against super-strong npc's with an armor class of at least 18 whenever we go off the beaten track . .
or,
GM: Look if you don't do what you're told, the palace guards will kill you. That's the logical consequences of your choice, ok? So do as you're told!

It's easy to act like players are whining, but the fact is that plenty of GM's railroad and plenty of players are justified in loathing it, no matter what specific form it takes. That is just as true of various sorts of control that some would like to pretend do not qualify as railroading.

Water has an extremely specific definition. Two parts oxygen one part hydrogen.

Railroading also has a specific definition. A form of excessive GM control that the players find objectionable or innapropriate.

Pretty tricky to find a more simply defined word than that. By using an incredibly broad definition of railroad that includes "anything the players don't like" removes any meaning from the word.

Once again, that criticism is utterly without value. There are thousands of words in common usage that are meaningless by your criteria. Pretty much any term with subjective content, for a start.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But he is still limimting choices.

He is limiting choices if he doesn't allow the fighter to turn into a bumblebee at will because the player thinks it would be cool. He is limiting the choice of the other players by limiting their ability to understand consequences of choice if he instead allows the fighter to turn into a bumblebee at will. He is limiting choices if there are only four branches at an intersection. Perforce, choices are limited in the game.

Likewise, under no circumstances should the unwelcome reduction of player choice be justified via semantics. 'Legitimate' is a matter of opinion, instant death is a pretty obvious example of this. Some people might claim that it's legit to kill a PC by gating a balor onto them, but it's hardly self-evident, and if the player still has a big problem with it, that's still a bad thing!

The borders of "legitimate" are a matter of opinion; the core of the legitimate authority of the DM is fairly objective in 3.X. The CR/EL system gives you a pretty clear idea of what sort of encounter the players are liable to be able to deal with; anything where EL is significantly higher than APL means that the players must be provided with additional routes to anticipate said encounter and avoid it if they like. That's pretty clear. If the being they are facing can cast spells as a third-level cleric, what spells are possible and what spells are not is pretty clear. That the DM may make modifications is clear. That the DM is also responsible for balancing these modifications is somewhat less clear, but I would claim it as a pretty obvious objective standard.

In fact, as I was saying above, once you get past the idea that any control is railroading, you can start working on the more subjective definition of what is legitimate or not, and thus create a stronger sense of what is desirable in the game. Suddenly, at least IMHO, this thread would become twice as useful as a resource for DMs (especially those beginning their career).

No. The Gm comes up with the circumstances, the reality, and if the player doens't like it, that's a problem. The Gm may feel it's perfectly legit for the PC's to be mind-controlled by their petNPC for a couple of sessions, but it doens't matter if the players don't like it. They still don't like it, it's still a lack of choice they don't like.

There is a real difference between being mind-controlled for a couple of sessions and having an NPC enthrall you to gain a chance to escape, I would agree. If something like this were to occur in a game that I was running, I admit freely that if all PCs were mind-controlled, I would skip ahead to when the mind-control was done and briefly fill the PCs in on what happened during that period. I wouldn't force a player to play out a period of involuntary lycanthropy either, but I would probably let them if they wanted to, and involuntary lycanthropy would still be a very real possible consequence of hunting werewolves.

And it sucks if you roll up a first level character and elminster appears in their house, chokeslams them through the table, and then sets their groin on fire. Too bad! It's by the rules!

This is obviously equivilent to being in a combat with ghouls and being paralyzed by one.

Any GM can rationalise any decision they make, or action they take. A good GM realises that all their actions impact the fun of the game, and that their rationalisations are not sacrosant or self-justified.

What matters is how the players feel about the game- there are no doubt a vast number of players who would not enjoy a session in wich they were paralised or helpless for most of the action, and only a poor Gm brushes that off if it occurs 'by the rules' or for a logical reasons.

Here I disagree (again).

A good DM presents a world in which many things are possible. As I said earlier, the campaigns that I've run (since Christmas 1979) that have been most successful have started with a hook to a higher-level adventure that the players cannot hope to accomplish at the begining, a maiden voyage hook (an easy to see adventure that keeps the game from stalling at the get-go) and lots of hooks to do other things for those who want to cast around at the begining of play, the middle of play, or any time during play. I try to ensure that following any given hook opens up at least three more possibilities, so that there is always material that the players will not use...always more to choose than it is possible to follow up on. To me, and IME to the vast majority of players, this is good design and results in a fun game.

One of the hooks thus presented might be to ghoul-haunted caves. The players know that there are ghouls in the caves, and they know that ghouls might paralyze you if they touch you. If the players then choose to go to those caves, and I decide to suddenly remove their ability to paralyze because it might be "unfun" then I have done a serious disservice to my players. I have negated their ability to choose and to plan (all the equipment they got to deal with the paralysis is so much wasted gold).

In another adventure location, I might set up an encounter where three skeletal ghouls (modified monsters) lurk in a half-flooded chamber. When the PCs enter, paralysis offers another problem -- keep fighting, or lose another sword arm to recover and support your paralyzed comrade who has slipped below the water? If the encounter is not unbalanced, and there is a chance to recover thereafter, this can become a tense and memorable battle.

It certainly matters how the players feel about the game. It matters that the players feel that their choices matter, which means that the DM shouldn't fudge rolls IMHO, and shouldn't pull punches. Equally, it means that the DM shouldn't be stingy with information when the players seek to learn about the world, shouldn't nerf divination spells in general, and should be upfront about the type of game that they are running. Players need to be able to make informed decisions, and then deal with the consequences of those decisions.

The officious weasel taxman might be found in Saltmarsh. Now the players have to weight the benefits of going to that town with the downside of prossibly running into Mr. Weasel (which should not happen every time; NPCs are...with very few exceptions...not omniscient). Choices where you must weigh potential benefits against potential losses are legitimate, meaningful choices. They are, in fact, more meaningful than ones where you simply choose between benefits. If they were not, no one would adventure in the game. We'd be satisfied to sit around levelling characters instead, making choices about how to move them from 1st to 20th level without any opposition or challenges at all.

If a game isn't fun, no one in their right mind should sit through session after session of it, player or DM. Life is too short, and there are too many other things you could be doing. A game where loss is impossible because the DM is afraid of limiting my choices or dampening my happiness wouldn't be worth playing in to me.

No, it's not. My definition is more accurate than your own, or at the very least, they have equal merit. Railroading is not limimted by the criteria you guys are setting out, wether they be based on charm spells, campaign setting, or any other distinction you may seek. Railroading is simply when a player has a choice taken away, and doesn't like it, then they go complain on the internet and call it railroading. That's railroading.

http://www.treasuretables.org/glossary-of-gming-terms#r defines railroading as

A linear play style in which the players have very few options, so named because much like a train, adventures like this proceed as if on rails. Railroading gets a bad rap, but it can be a good thing in certain situations (at con games, for instance).​

http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-20521.html defines it as

Railroad (verb) To, as a DM, force the players along a linier storyline that often does not allow for deviations created by player input.​

(This definition is also used by GameSpy at http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/topic.asp?fid=6113&tid=1110291&p=11.)

My definition was

Usurpation of player choice + linear play = railroading.​

Now let's examine these definitions and see how much they differ.

The treasure tables definition begins with "A linear play style" and the wizards definition includes "a linier storyline" [sic] as part of the definition. This syncs up very well with my notation of "linear play".

The treasure tables definition includes "in which the players have very few options" but notes that railroading "can be a good thing in certain situations", so their definition clearly includes some DM control that the person or persons writing the definition viewed as legitimate control under some circumstances ("at con games, for instance"). However, they acknowledge that the term is generally derogatory ("gets a bad rap"), and that the circumstances under which railroading is appropriate are limited. This is a broader definition than mine, but not by much.

The wizards definition, OTOH, includes "force the players" and "that often does not allow for deviations created by player input" which seems to sync pretty well with "usurpation of player choice".

Please note that both of these definitions of the common usage of the term require more than a player simply having some level of choice removed. The first definition requires that the players "have very few options" and the second that the DM forces the players along a linear storyline.

Here's another definition from http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/RPG_Lexica:PQR:

A style of GMing in which the GM has only one specific plot line in mind, and forces the players to follow that plot regardless of whether they want to do so. From an analogy to a railroad, which constrains the train to one specific route. Sometimes referred to as The D&M Railroad (by reference to numerous real-world railroads, but especially the B&O Railroad referenced in the game Monopoly).​

Once more, we see a linear element ("only one specific plot line") and a usurpation of player choice ("and forces the players to follow that plot regardless of whether they want to do so"). Once more, we do not see anything about a player "having a choice taken away" except within specific context, nor do we see anything about going on the Internet to complain about it.

That is the "real and common usage of the term", and it is not simply "any loss of power or choice which the player finds objectionable". We may certainly discuss whether or not other forms of loss of power or choice are good or bad, but railroading as the term is used by the general gaming public is a very specific type.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/glossary/alphabetical/R.html provides another good source of common usage terms. Herein, railroading is defined as

Broadly-used term for linear plotting in RPGs. (1) GM behavior when the planned scenario requires a particular sequence of events/scenes leading to a particular ending. The GM ensures that it arrives there by a variety of means. This is generally pejorative, but is sometimes defended as valid as long as it is not overused. (2) On the Forge, a purely negative term for GM behavior that breaks the Social Contract via the GM controlling a player-character's decisions or opportunities for decisions.​

Once more, we note the elements of linear play and the the usurpation of player choice "breaks the Social Contract via the GM controlling a player-character's decisions or opportunities for decisions".

The Forge definition (2) here is a lot closer to Happyelf's "A form of excessive GM control that the players find objectionable or innapropriate." But this definition is again different from the previous one supplied by poster, which suggested that any form of GM control that the players don't like is railroading. Now the control must be "excessive". I.e., it breaks the Social Contract. I.e., it is a usurpation of player control.

However, the Forge definition is still under the main "Broadly-used term for linear plotting in RPGs" and the Happyelf defintion does not contain the linear element that is otherwise universal.