Telling a story vs. railroading

[Hussar]

Dammit RC. I so want to disagree with you, but you keep saying everything right. Stop that right now.

Railroading is done by DM's (or possibly adventure writers) to protect their pet project. Not every DM action which limits player choices is railroading. If we say that, if we allow that every DM action which limits player choices to be railroading, then pretty much every action a DM takes is railroading. The only way to avoid it would be endless random tables to create adventures based entirely on player choices.

And even that would be railroading because the table would be limiting player choices by having obstacles appear that might force the players to make less than infinite choices.

I really don't think that this is a very useful definition. RC's works a heck of a lot better.

In other words, if a random event causes a cave in behind the party, forcing them to go forwards, this is not railroading. If the DM decides that the previously structurally sound ceiling suddenly collapses so the players can't leave, after they have decided to leave, that is.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What makes for a useful definition?

I think, too, in order to move forward, that we have to come to terms with what makes for a useful definition. I would argue that, when a term is defined, any useful definition must contain criteria by which it can be determined that the term does, or does not, apply to a given example.

The term "water" is defined by its chemical composition. That composition can be tested to determine if a substance is water, and, if so, how purely it is water. The term "fluid" is a state of matter defined by its properties, which can be tested. Even these fairly easy to define terms, though, offer exceptions on their boundaries. How dirty can water be and still be water? Glass is sometimes defined as an "amorphous solid" -- how does this differ from a fluid?

The hazards of language make any definition limited in its usefulness, no matter how obvious the definition is. It should be no wonder, therefore, that it is difficult to define terms for somewhat more nebulous concepts, such as behavior in rpgs.

As a thought experiment, imagine that your friend Billy Bob Joe Bob Jo Jo Jo Bob was the best DM you ever had the pleasure of playing under. Your friend Ernie plays in a game with Billy Bob Joe Bob Jo Jo Jo Bob and comes back disappointed. He claims that the game was a railroad. Your impression of Billy Bob Joe Bob Jo Jo Jo Bob's DMing makes you believe that he would never railroad. Either Ernie is wrong, or your impression is wrong. But, how do you determine which is the case?

In other words, what criteria can you apply to Ernie's description of the game to decide whether or not Billy Bob Joe Bob Jo Jo Jo Bob was railroading or not?

I would argue that the most commonly acceptable answer to the above question determines, perforce, the elements required for a clear definition of the term.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dammit RC. I so want to disagree with you, but you keep saying everything right. Stop that right now.

Hussar,

We really don't differ as much as you might think. I take exception to some things that I believe to be blanket statements, and we differ on the particulars of some points of game philosophy and game design philosophy. Overall, though, I think most of our disagreements are due to semantical issues. Where differences occur, they allow access to new perspectives. I might not always agree with you, but I am better for having a chance to examine an opposing viewpoint.

At the heart of it, though, I think I find myself in accord on this thread with so many people whose game theory widely differs from mine because there is a central, common element to the way this term is used, and it has been central and common for decades. I would go so far as to say that even those who disagree with the general concept of "Usurpation of player choice + linear play = railroading" keep circling back around it because it is so core.

So we see people who say that any linear play is railroading, and we see people who say that any loss of player control is railroading, but as they discuss the terms the missing elements tend to creep back in.

Rounser, for example, seemed to make the claim that any linear play in railroading. Clarification of this point demonstrated a belief that said linear play was a direct result of a lack of player choice. Further examination showed that he limited player choice in some ways in his own game, and did not consider that railroading. Clearly then, despite his unwillingness to define it that way, he circles around the idea that certain types of limitations are valid and certain types are not.

Happyelf, OTOH, seems to be making the claim initially that any limitation on player control or power that the players do not like is railroading. He leaves off the concept of linear play, and he leaves off the concept that said limitations must be illegitimate, i.e., a usurpation. In fact, he actively denies that this must be the case.

However, shortly thereafter, he states that the DM must go "too far" for it to be railroading, and that railroading is a "form of excessive GM control" (emphasis mine). Again, we see an unwillingness to accept a definition while simultaneously circling around the terms by which it is defined.

So, I think that the reason we are so much in agreement is because, in this particular case, once the term is parsed out to its simplest defintion, it is very hard to both resist that defintion and to maintain a position that is internally consistent.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

OTOH, Hussar, you've disagreed with me lots of times when I've kept saying everything right.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. I know. It's just so odd to agree with you so wholeheartedly.

Really, my problem with HappyElf's definition is it relies on the players views of the situation too much. There could be times when there are elements they don't know about which gives the illusion of railroading. Take the example of the player missing.

Say, for example, he hit the first time with a 16. Later, he rolls another 16 and misses. "Railroad" goes up the cry. However, there could be a multitude of other answers depending on the situation. A simple contingency spell with mage armor or shield would do it. A magic item goes into effect that changes the equation. Perhaps the player's weapon is cursed. I could go on, but, I think I've made my point.

Yes, it could very well be that the DM is railroading. That's true. But, it might not be true.

Take the idea that every mage the party meets whacks them with charm spells. Sure, you could say that's railroading. YOu could also make the arguement that it's a very good tactic for wizards to use against armored types and that's why it gets used so often. Why use fireballs when you can make friends? The players could possibly get around it fairly simply as well. Have the cleric memorize protection from evil once in a while. Take some will save bump feats. Spend some of that point buy in Wis. I certainly wouldn't label effective tactics as railroading. If the party continually falls for the same tactic, why should the DM change?

I would prefer a more objective standard which RC has illustrated.

 

[Elfdart]

would you consider it in the same way if the PC wants to go somewhere and the dm says no not because he doesnt want the party to go there, but the dm is unsure of the destination? upon hearing the dm say no, the pc decides to go there anyway, through hook or by crook, whichever means necessary, diverting the story being told to suit the certain pcs ideas?

Who says there has to be a story?

I do understand that sometimes PCs can try to take the game to areas the DM either doesn't want to go or is not prepared to go. In that case, honesty is the best policy. Just tell the players (for example):

"Look, I don't have anything prepared for seagoing adventures and I don't feel like making it up on the spot."

If they have any maturity, they'll understand and play along. Then you have a head start on preparing an adventure at sea for a future session.

There's also nothing wrong with telling players "I'm not doing any extra-planar adventures. It's not part of my campaign." Again, honesty is the best policy.

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

 

[Hussar]

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

So no paladins, clerics, or druids in your campaign? No lords or dukes? No military commanders or ship captains?

Look, sometimes, and frankly many times, the party can be ordered around and its perfectly legitimate. Take Oriental Adventures for a second. 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.

Is Oriental Adventures one long railroad? I'm thinking that those who like to play in Rokugan might disagree.

In an older campaign, I ran a naval based campaign. That meant the that party had a captain. Is it railroading for the captain (an NPC played by the DM - Me) to tell them what to do? Is it also railroading to punish them if they don't? They were not shanghaied onto the ship, they chose to be there. I offered the position and they took it. As a DM, am I now barred from using the reasonable authority I have as captain of the ship?

In other words, when M tells Bond to go kill some nasty bad guy, is that railroading?

 

[Elfdart]

So no paladins, clerics, or druids in your campaign? No lords or dukes? No military commanders or ship captains?

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

Look, sometimes, and frankly many times, the party can be ordered around and its perfectly legitimate. Take Oriental Adventures for a second.

You can have Oriental Adventures.

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?

Is Oriental Adventures one long railroad?

If it's anything like the original written by David Cook it sure is. Only Union Pacific has done more railroading than Cook.

I'm thinking that those who like to play in Rokugan might disagree.

That's their concern, not mine. Some people enjoy that type of game, or don't know of any other way to play.

In an older campaign, I ran a naval based campaign. That meant the that party had a captain. Is it railroading for the captain (an NPC played by the DM - Me) to tell them what to do? Is it also railroading to punish them if they don't? They were not shanghaied onto the ship, they chose to be there. I offered the position and they took it. As a DM, am I now barred from using the reasonable authority I have as captain of the ship?

Do you as a DM prevent the PCs from taking control of the ship from the captain? Is this captain so powerful that they can't possibly tell him to get stuffed and throw him overboard if he wants to do something about it? Do you have a sea dragon or god of the oceans smite the mutineers?

If yes to any of the above, it's a railroad.

In other words, when M tells Bond to go kill some nasty bad guy, is that railroading?

Apples and oranges. Movies and novels like James Bond need storylines. Games don't. In fact, a storyline is antithetical to a game. The reason pro wrestling isn't a sport is because it's fixed: the action and outcomes are already determined. The action and outcomes in games and sports should not be predetermined.

 

[Elfdart]

D&D assumes that parties will be lucky enough to have no imbalanced factors, fairly survivable encounters, and a great deal of patience. These frequently don't happen in practice, but there are many work-arounds. No solution works for every group; it can be hard to communicate well and find a play style that everyone likes.

Who says D&D assumes no "imbalanced factors", or "fairly survivable encounters"?

If you're very skillful, you can adjust encounters to avoid killing off the party, but that requires skill. Players sometimes complain that the DM fudges too much -- I certainly would rather just die and roll up a new character. I personally think PC death is a lot more fun than dragging out a boring sequence of wandering through a maze as walking wounded, running away from random encounters, until you can heal up. It's okay for me to die and bounce back immediately with a new character: it's boredom that kills campaigns.

A simpler solution is to follow through with a TPK unless they're beginners. Maybe they'll learn to run away or hide rather than tangle with things over their heads.

 

[Dr Simon]

I think one of the problems in defining 'rail-roading' is that there are two seperate elements being addressed here.

One might be termed 'macro-railroading'. This is where the DM presents the players with one choice for the adventure of the evening, or has a pre-determined story arc planned for the campaign whereby one set of events _will_ follow the next, regardless of player action.

The first option is not really a problem if the players are mature enough to accept that the DM may have limited time resources to prepare for all eventualities. It is also fairly easy for a good DM to get around. In the group I played with, the DM had a vast collection of published adventures. After finishing one, he usually offered us a choice - Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth or Dragons or Wen Tseng? Sometimes, character action dictated the choice. A couple of party members had been spirited to another plane (thanks to the Deck of Many Things) and we proposed to rescue them. So he pulled out Tales of the Planes.

This way, he didn't need to wing things too much on each night, but our overall path was decided by us. With the plethora of cheap or free RPG resources on the net, it's not too hard to run something like this. (Note, though, it was a fairly Old Skool dungeon-bashing style of game, which are easiest to run like this, I think).

There is also the form of social contract implicit in gaming that the DM is going to provide an adventure for the players that is appropriate for the abilities of the characters and tastes of the players, and that the players will therefore deign to at least take the offered plot hook.

The latter type of 'macro-railroading' is more potentially more problematic, symptomatic of the DL series, and a lot of the 2nd Ed. modules. Call it the Hickman Effect . Although some groups _do_ enjoy having a coherent storyline, in the hands of an over-rigourous or inexperienced type of DM it can easily lead to the second form of rail-roading, which is:

'Micro-railroading'. This is the 'you can't go that way' type of rail-roading that occurs during the course of play of a particular adventure whereby the DM flat-out vetoes player actions that are not in keeping with his perception of the way thigs should be run. To return to the social contract idea above, it may be the assumption that 'if you don't play in this adventure there is no session tonight', but that does not imply that '...and you must follow the adventure exactly as it is written.'

This primarily a problem with inexperienced or tired DMs unable or unwilling to improvise a tangent, or to reward creative player thinking (such as where they come up with a way to block all the orcs in with a cave-in rather than fight them all toe-toe). It can also be a problem with the campaign-arc form of meta-railroading since player choices at the micro level can seriously undermine pre-planned plats.

Macro-railroading, as mentioned above, is a large portion of the DL Dragonlance modules, especially at the point where the party is split into two groups after DL4 (one plays DL 6-9, the other DL 10-12, then they meet up for DL 13-14). It is possible to play the DL campaign without doing this, and allowing player character actions much greater meaning within the campaign (I know, I've done it).

Someone mentioned Shadowrun adventures above, and these were fiends for micro-railroading. The main problem was that they tended to work on an assumption at odds with the setting. The setting proclaims the PCs as shady, criminal types doing dirty work for anyone for money, yet most of the adventures assumed that they would take the honourable course of action. Thus each section had to have a 'Troubleshooting' section on what to do if the players don't stick to the plot.

I have two further experiences to relate.

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

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