Telling a story vs. railroading

[Dr Simon]

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?

I don't know about a 'rigged' game. That just sounds ike childish DMing. What ought to happen is the character becomes a ronin, and DM and players get to play out all those fun duty/honour dichotomies prevalent in Japanese literature

 

[happyelf]

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).

That's completly wrong. If you can not bring yourself to accept the fact that these issues are relative to prefernce, then you are not going to help anyone. You're just giving people excuses to ignore the real issues.

Any control byt the GM has the oppurtunity to be abused. ANY control. Yes, even your favorite way of controlling the game, or that guy over there, or some other guy. Yes, even when some guy's pet npc wizard charms the party, that's railroading. Yes, even when the GM over-used monsters with paralisis powers so he can take the PC's capitive for the umteenth time, that's railroading. Yes, even if the GM nods along when the player says he wants to do a more gritty crime-based game, but privatly resolves to force the game into his preferred heroic mode, that's railroading.

All these things are potentially railroading.

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.

I'm sorry, i'm talking about the actual usage of the word, not the definitions given from sources every bit as flawed as those on this thread. When real people, players, complain about railroading, they don't specify 'linear' in some semantic manner- for instance i've never seen a player complain about a game that lacks real choice, but then say "However since this lack of choice was not caused by the GM's adherence to a linear plotline, it isn't railroading!"

What does linear even mean? Does a GM have to write a plot down in advance, for it's to be considered railroading when he tries to enforce it? Distinctions like that serve no real purpose. They just let GM's off the hook for leaning on player choice in a way they should be cautious of abusing.

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.

And yet, that is the undeniable reality of what railroading is. I find that the statements made by players are of far more use when discussing terms used by them. Players make no such distinction, nor should they- for players, railroading is a lack of choice wich they do not enjoy. They may differ on the details, but that is a matter of preference.

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

No, it's not. This is not true. Railroading is use in a very broad way, but not a meaningless way.

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.

Completly and utterly wrong. You are willfully ignoring what i'm saying, I guess because you're not conformtable wich what you percieve to be a challenge to your style of GMing. But that means nothing to me- the facts are clear. You've said that if railroading is too broad a term it is meaingless (false) and that if railroading can be applied to many different types opf control, then everything si railroading (false). I don't think you're making any effort to understand what i'm saying at all, wich is a shame because it's very simple and pretty obviously self-evident if you stop to think about it.

Railroading is a loss of chocie that a given player does not like.

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

No it doesn't. Your criticisms don't make any sense.

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.

Those are both potentially cases of railroading. I'm amazed that anyone can look at the first instance and ignore the posibility that it's railroading, that many players, dependent on their preferences, will no apreciating being forced down a path in that way.

For one thing, how do they know it si random? For another, who's to say it is? How often does the gm roll to see if a cave collapses, anyway? Many GM's will only make such a roll (or an equivalent)when it suits them, and many who endorse this kind of mindset will fudge the roll if it doesn't come up as they wish. A 'random roll' is hardly a clear cut issue.

For sintance, say there are two walls that the PC can climb. One the Gm wants them to climb, one thye do not. Wich do you think will have a higher climb DC? Wich will the GM make more checks for?

Nothing is clear cut in GMing, everything is ultimatly effected by fiat, and a railroading GM can lean on fiat in many different ways, ways that many may or may not feel are legitimate.

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.

I've stated a clear crtieria for the term. Railroading is when player choice is removed in a way they find objectionable or inapropriate. It's a matter of preference.

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?

Your example s false, since as I have repeatedly said, IT IS A MATTER OF PREFERENCE. Different players will find different kinds of GM control to their liking.

Some players will be happy to accept whatever adventure or session goal the GM puts in front of them- others will want to decide where they want the party to go.

Some players will be happy to plough through as many monsters as the GM throws at them- others will have their own crtiera for what they consider a fair challenge, be it based on system balance, or the norms of the setting.

Some players will accept their character being charmed of geased if they faila save, others will be hostile to anything they percieve as taking away an essential 'core' of their contorl over the character.

And the list goes on.

In the example, you and ernie are both right, potentially. While there may be such a thing as a super-power-tripping GM who commits railroading beyond all issues of preference, preference is still the primary criteia, and semantics like 'linear' have no role in any event.

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.

I agree, but the most commonly accepted usage is mine, not yours. Quite self-evidently, railroading is a removal of player choice wich the player finds objectionable or innapropriate.

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

Yes, but it might be true, so ruling it out on semantic grounds is not valid.

Player: "Hey, every time my PC bard tries to play his lute in a tavern to get some money, your uber NPC bard teleports in and does a much better performance and humiliates him. That's not fair!"

GM: "Sorry! That is based on his personality, it's not a 'linear plot element' per se! Hence it is not railroading! You'll just have to get your money from this fedex quest I have written up!"

It is railroading. It's a GM stomping on the player's choices.

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.

Because it's not a tactic, it's the GM running roughshod over the game. Why does every mage have charm memorised at just the right time? Why can't the PC's use endless charm spells, and don't pretend they can with the impunity afforded these NPC's?

Why can't the PC's use other 'effective strategies', like using the geyser mode of a decanter of endless water to drown all the dungeons they come across? Many GM's are quite happy to run their monsters like swat teams, and then demand far different standards of behaviour from the PC's.

If the party continually falls for the same tactic, why should the DM change?

But of course if they stop 'falling' for it, they will change tactics. Why do I get the feeling that if, after months of game time in wich the PC's get charmed over and over, once they get hold of say, some charm-resisting amulets, these once charm-happy npc wizards will immediatly switch to another strategy? Even if they've never met the PC's? Or are you saying that you'd continue to have your wizard NPC"s open with a charm spell in every encounter, waste their first round of casting, if that's what you were doing prior to the PC's picking up such defences? Wouldn't that be logical?

The 'strategic option' argument works for some, but not for others. It's a matter of, yes, once again, preference. Some people will be fine with it, others will loathe it. And it's hardly the objective reality you claim.

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

It doens't matter what you prefer, the reality is the same. The reality is that everyones preferences matter, not just yours.

You may prefer to charm the PC's a lot and not suffer any flack for it, but it's still as lame thing to do in the minds of many players. It doesn't matter if your definition of railroading legitimised that strategy- many players will still feel it is inapropriate, and they have that right. If you want to help those players have fun, you will respect their preferences.

 

[rounser]

Rounser, for example, seemed to make the claim that any linear play in railroading.

Nothing like that, and in fact I've stated "my claim" three times in this thread, but you're seeing fit to put words into my mouth in an attempt to make me serve as your strawman. I don't appreciate that.

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.

Your conclusions are baseless because your restating of my premise simply isn't true:

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.

I'm content to leave my take on railroading at the level of "next adventure is...", because I think that's the classical definition of a railroad, in the Dragonlance Classics sense (although DL Classics also commits other "sins" that could be considered railroading, such as NPCs who cannot die). Railroading within an adventure is another issue, and also being discussed in this thread (I think). I'm not discussing that.

As I've said earlier in this thread - I'm discussing railroading at the campaign arc level, of which adventure occurs next, not in terms of the finite area of a dungeon or setting. By that measure, I'm sure that not even all the infinite planes would satisfy someone's strange definition of railroading as "any DM-imposed restriction whatsoever", which you again seem to be hinting that you believe in, and as we've covered earlier in the thread is a furphy.

Now please don't do that again; it's not fair to misrepresent what I've said for your own purposes. If people are interested in my argument, they can read my posts, not your "interpretation" of them.

 

[Dr Simon]

But you're stepping on dangerous ground here that, reductio ad absurdum (or whatever the correct latin is) means that *anything* that the DM puts into the game is potentially railroading. If events can only happen in the game if the DM is not involved in the decision, then why bother with a DM.

To address specifically the tunnel collapse event, like everything else it depends on how the DM handles it:

Scenario #1
Players: We want to go down that corridor here.
DM (who forgot to map that bit of the dungeon and wants the players to go the other way) : Er...you can't.
Players: We want to got that way.
DM: Oh, the tunnel just collapsed. Looks like that way is blocked.


Scenario #2
Players: We want to go down that corridor there.
DM (who is happy for the players do so because he's got a scenario in mind whereby the characters get trapped underground and have to find a way out, which may lead to them discovering the presence of Drow in the area etc.): The dwarf thinks that the roof looks pretty unstable. The slightest noise might bring it down.
Players: Doesn't matter, we want to go that way. We'll be careful.

(This could now go two ways. The DM could call for Move Silently rolls from all characters, assuming that the fighter in plate mail will blow it, or he could just let the cave-in happen as planned. If a DM sets the Move Silently DC quite high, then in practice it is much the same as making the collapse a fait accompli.

As Happyelf points out, a random check for ceiling collapse is not something that is inherent in the game - like what monsters are where and how the Baron reacts to the PCs killing his tax collector, these are part of what the DM has to decide, and the DM *has* to decide on some things otherwise, what would be the point? Someone pointed out earlier in this thread that the DM is playing to have fun too. I know that is some dork player stopped and cried foul everytime something cropped up that wasn't a direct consequence of *their* action I'd stop playing pretty sharpish. The players get to decide where their characters go, how they do it and how they react to things, the DM should be allowed to act on behalf of Cruel Fate, Lady Luck (although she's possibly in the dice), Whim of the Gods, and so forth from time to time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's completly wrong. If you can not bring yourself to accept the fact that these issues are relative to prefernce, then you are not going to help anyone. You're just giving people excuses to ignore the real issues.

There is obviously a breakdown in communication here somewhere. Either you're not reading what you're responding to, or I'm not writing effectively.

Of course these issues are relative to preference. Hence my long argument with rounser that simply being linear does not constitute railroading. If the players agree to play an advenutre path, they are not being railroaded. If they agree under duress, different story. If they think they are playing a free-form game, but are instead playing an adventure path, different story. A linear game may be evidence of potential railroading, but is not in and of itself proof of railroading.

The same applies to constraints on player choice and player power. One player may want to start at 20th level in a party of 5th level characters; telling him "no" is not railroading. The players may really want a natural "1" to hit the BBEG; saying "no" is not railroading. A player joining an ongoing group in a world with no warforged ninjas is not being railroaded because he is disallowed a warforged ninja. Again, constraints to player choices may be evidence of potential railroading, but are not in and of themselves proof of railroading.

How you could have read the posts you responded to and thought, "Gee, in every post this guy says I'm not taking enough into account with my definition of railroading. With every post he claims my definition is too broad. He keeps claiming that I am not being accurate because I am not taking circumstances into account. Obviously, his view is that these things are NOT relative." is beyond me.

Again, maybe I wasn't being clear.

Any control byt the GM has the oppurtunity to be abused. ANY control.

Yes, but this does not make every control abuse. Nor does it automatically make every allegation of abuse true.

Look at your next little bit, with emphasis added:

Yes, even when the GM over-used monsters with paralisis powers so he can take the PC's capitive for the umteenth time, that's railroading. Yes, even if the GM nods along when the player says he wants to do a more gritty crime-based game, but privatly resolves to force the game into his preferred heroic mode, that's railroading.​

Each of those examples meet the criteria for railroading, because there is a usurpation of player power that leads to linear play. However, if you remove the emphasized bits, claiming that any of the examples is railroading becomes ludicrous.

Your other example

Yes, even when some guy's pet npc wizard charms the party, that's railroading.​

may or may not be railroading, depending upon what is meant by the emphasized words. If you are implying what I think you are, then I would agree that a usurpation of player power is taking place, leading to linear play, and hence railroading.

All these things are potentially railroading.

Everything in the game can be used to potentially railroad players. That doesn't make everything a railroad.

If the players and the DM are at odds because the DM is abusive, either the players are going to quit or the DM is going to win. Simply put, the scale of powers that a DM has relative to those of the players is of a much higher magnitude. Those powers can easily be abused, especially when the DM is inexperienced or immature (which has nothing to do with age). All examples of DM abuse are abuse. Not all examples are railroading.

I'm sorry, i'm talking about the actual usage of the word, not the definitions given from sources every bit as flawed as those on this thread.

Which is why I quoted Humpty-Dumpty from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass earlier. If you ignore any useage which you do not agree with, no matter how overwhelmingly it is supported, you are stuck, like Humpty-Dumpty, declaring that words mean what you want them to mean, nothing more and nothing less. Which creates a clear limitation on anyone's ability to communicate rationally.

But your earlier definition leads to claims that, for example, all paralysis is railroading, as well as several other weird examples that were brought up by Hussar and myself. If they are not railroading, as you then claimed, your definition could not have been complete. So, you revised your definition. When I parsed out the difference between your earlier and later definition, the later definition (not surprisingly) had moved closer to "Usurpation of player control + linear play = railroading".

What does linear even mean? Does a GM have to write a plot down in advance, for it's to be considered railroading when he tries to enforce it? Distinctions like that serve no real purpose. They just let GM's off the hook for leaning on player choice in a way they should be cautious of abusing.

It means that the outcome of action is foreordained regardless of player input. It can be foreordained by months or years (the DM decides the final encounter at the start of the game, and by hell or high water the BBEG will live to see it) or foreordained by 30 seconds (you took the last Coke from the fridge and now your character is going to die, die, die).

This linear action doesn't have to be long-term, but it does have to exist. In the beginning of the WLD, for instance,

Spoiler

the moment you enter the dungeon the exit disappears.

There is no way to detect or avoid this. That is definitely linear, it definitely usurps player control, and it is definitely a railroad. (There, Hussar, now you can have something to argue with me about.) Once inside the dungeon, teleportation spells do not work to get you outside the dungeon, but play is no longer linear. You have lots and lots of options; you do not, however, have every possible option. Some player control has been usurped, but many options abound. The railroad is over; linear play has ended; reasonable choice has resumed.

Players make no such distinction, nor should they- for players, railroading is a lack of choice wich they do not enjoy. They may differ on the details, but that is a matter of preference.

I am somewhat confused why they should not make such distinctions. Surely, figuring out why you didn't enjoy something is the first step to avoiding similar things in the future?

Nor do I see any clear indication that a lack of parsing out the reasons for dissatisfaction implies that there are no reasons, or that those reasons are not determinable.

Finally, if you go back to this sort of "because the players don't enjoy it" type definition, then why isn't a PC death automatically railroading?

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 the example, you and ernie are both right, potentially. While there may be such a thing as a super-power-tripping GM who commits railroading beyond all issues of preference, preference is still the primary criteia, and semantics like 'linear' have no role in any event.

Railroading is a loss of chocie that a given player does not like.

I agree, but the most commonly accepted usage is mine, not yours. Quite self-evidently, railroading is a removal of player choice wich the player finds objectionable or innapropriate.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that there is no objective assessment that can be made regarding railroading, that the only criteria required for subjective assessment is how the player feels about something that occurs in the game, that there must be some removal of player choice or power so long as the caveat that only how the player feels determines whether or not there was removal of player choice or power and/or whether such limitations were legitimate, and that this is the most commonly accepted useage of the term "railroading". Have I got that quite right?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nothing like that, and in fact I've stated "my claim" three times in this thread, but you're seeing fit to put words into my mouth in an attempt to make me serve as your strawman. I don't appreciate that.

My apologies. I certainly encourage anyone to re-read through this thread and see if my conclusions are baseless or not.

 

[rounser]

My apologies. I certainly encourage anyone to re-read through this thread and see if my conclusions are baseless or not.

Well, I've done some work for them already. The ones you claimed about my argument are indeed baseless. Here's my premise again in case you "forget" it again and decide to make an example of me again based on something you've fabricated:

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.

I'm content to leave my take on railroading at the level of "next adventure is...", because I think that's the classical definition of a railroad, in the Dragonlance Classics sense (although DL Classics also commits other "sins" that could be considered railroading, such as NPCs who cannot die). Railroading within an adventure is another issue, and also being discussed in this thread (I think). I'm not discussing that.

As I've said earlier in this thread - I'm discussing railroading at the campaign arc level, of which adventure occurs next, not in terms of the finite area of a dungeon or setting. By that measure, I'm sure that not even all the infinite planes would satisfy someone's strange definition of railroading as "any DM-imposed restriction whatsoever", which you again seem to be hinting that you believe in, and as we've covered earlier in the thread is a furphy.

 

[Janx]

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.

By playing and RPG, as a player, you inherently must accept that the GM comes up with the circumstances, and the reality.

The second half of that sentence is imprecise. "if the player doesn't like it, that's a problem." Well it may certainly be a problem for the PC, or the player, but that doesn't make it a railroad or a bad game. If you fight an equal CR encounter, and your PC dies, you may not like it. Is that a problem? In the context of the D&D game, where PC death is a possibility, no. I posit that not all game events or situations are equal. Some are fair, some are not (ie. unbalanced or railroad). Some the player will like, some the player will not.

Now certainly, as a GM, you should know that most players do not like losing control of their characters. Thus, direct mind control, rape, hopeless imprisonment, stripping of gear usually don't go over well. And a lot of times, railroad GMs use these exact outcomes. However, that doesn't mean that in a non-railroad situation, they can't happen.

Now I can build an NPC Wizard of equal CR. And I could fudge the die rolls so his charm/sleep/incapacitate spells/items work on the party, so I can imprison them in my dungeon, so the party is forced to play my "Escape From the Dungeon of Doom" adventure. That would be a railroad. Not the dungeon, but the act of forcing them into the dungeon, no matter what they tried to do.

Or, I could run the NPC fairly, get really lucky on my rolls (while the PCs roll badly), and knock them out, and decide to dump them in my dungeon, rather than kill them outright. This instance is not technically a railroad. The PCs might have been able to win, or parley, or run. The only way they end up in the dungeon is by losing the fight (or going there deliberately).

In both cases, the players won't like being dumped in the dungeon, but only in the former example have they honest reason to protest.


Now on a different tack, there's folks saying that building tons of different adventure and story possibilities is hard work. And there's folks saying it's not, you just gottta build it, and the PCs will come. I say the answer is a bit in the middle.

Let's say I build a new setting, and we start off with a village, with 4 dungeons nearby. The village has 100 people in it, and I roll them up, and build up backstories for each. I also populate the dungeons. This would be the VR model (make up lots of stuff for the PCs to interact with), which in theory avoids railroading because I've got more than one thing to do.

Let's assume the PCs agree to play the game, and they don't know what to expect for the game start other than basic background on the world (gods, local lore, and some NPC contacts they already know). And I decided to start the game in the local tavern. This is pretty stereotypical for how a game starts, and I would consider it ridiculous to claim this is a railroad situation. So many campaigns start this way, that it is a decidedly acceptable way to start a campaign. If nothing else, normal players accept this as routine game-start sequence.

So the PCs are sitting in the tavern. Drinking. The PCs decide to do nothing but sit there, waiting for something to happen. If I, the GM don't think of something to happen, then nothing WILL happen in the game. If the PCs do nothing, and the GM doesn't create and event (NPC interaction or something) then no story happens. no fun happens. The solution for PCs that don't initiate anything is for the GM to initiate an action, causing a reaction from the players.

Thus, we must take it for granted that the GM is authorized to initiate events that affect the PCs. It is inherent to the job of the GM. At the minimum, the event might be a barfight, or an NPC complaining loudly about orcs to the north. But something has to happen, to make the game run, and the GM had to have the authority to create that event.

Now I also accept that the PCs may indeed initiate their own actions (which is what I think a large majority of the VR-model crowd expect), and that I'll have my hands busy dealing with reactions to the PCs, rather than creating new events to force the PCs to react.

If in my campaign design stage, I had created 4 active NPCs who had plans for the area, and had layed out their strategy and actions (and ripple effect actions of other NPCs), I am effectively planning events ahead of time.

In all of that, I haven't created a railroad. Yet.

If I had only planned 1 dungeon, with 1 bad guy, and 1 major problem to solve in the adventure, it still isn't a railroad, yet. It may be a poorly planned adventure because the PCs never hear about the problem and go the opposite way...but it's not a railroad.



Railroading is if in any of my planning, or event running I do the following:
plan an outcome, and thwart any contingency in an unrealistic fashion
fudge die rolls during the encounter to effect the result I wanted (PC defeat or PC victory)
force an event that the PCs actions should have prevented
Start a scene (or session) with the PCs in aftermath of a situation that they reasonably would have resisted/avoided (without running the originating encounter itself)


I have a narrow band of what I consider railroading, because I believe it exposes the crux of the problem with railroading.

In my games, I have:

started the campaign with the PCs sleeping on deck of their ship, getting attacked. Not a railroad. Reason: I set the scene where they reasonably would be, and used fair NPCs to initiate combat for the start of the game.

had a scene where I planned for the party rogue to sneak in and steal a scroll from a monk sanctuary. Instead, the rogue tried to parley for it. I made those attempts fail, and he finally resolved to steal it. This was an accidental railroad (my mistake in planning, as I expected him to steal it, and hadn't considered an alternative solution, and I worked to thwart the plan. My bad.). The game worked out OK, but it was frustrating for the players.

had the PCs captured, when they came down from an island tower (that had been bombarded by the capturing forces earlier). I simply surrounded the party with 20 men. They surrendered. I had planned the capture for when they would come down to from the tower (I assumed they would goto the tower). Had they never gone to the tower (unlikely, per their character and the situation), they wouldn't have been captured. In the same vein, the capture was really a transitional moment, where I passed information to the party (by being on the enemy ship) and they were later released. Thus, the PCs really just witnessed a cut scene, and no real effect occured against them. Was this a railroad? In some ways yes, but the negative impact was minimal, and it was used to move the plot forward.

I have played in a game where the GM planned for the party to be captured and brought to some city (oddly enough, the same city the NPC who wanted the capture was sending us). The GM used overwhelming force, captured most of the party, and stripped the PCs down. This was a railroad. It also hit the "bad GMing" nerve of stripping down the PCs (especially of female players).

I'm about to goto MN for a week and game with my friends. The campaign their playing is an island exploration (think conquest of the new world) and its an underfunded evil party. I don't get a choice or input on what we're going to play. Is this a railroad? I don't think so. It is the GM's job to invent the game world and set the initial game style. A good GM sets expectations before the campaign. As a player, if I want to play, I've got to jump into the situation as it is, and make the best of the situation. I may find that there's a lot of things my evil doppelganger may not be able to do (unlike a what I could do in a city campaign), but it's my job as a player to negotiate the situations the GM presents.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, I've done some work for them already. The ones you claimed about my argument are indeed baseless. Here's my premise again in case you "forget" it again and decide to make an example of me again based on something you've fabricated:

What I had said was:

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.​

Looking at the quotes you extracted, I'm still not getting where the difference lies. Could you please clarify for me which of the following statements you agree and disagree with:

Following an adventure path is linear play.

Following an adventure path without player approval is railroading.

Following an adventure path with player approval is railroading.

Any linear play is railroading.

Linear play is linear as a direct result of a lack of player choice.

Player choice is limited in some ways in your own game (example, PCs cannot choose to leave the Thunder Rift area).

You do not consider the aforementioned limitation of choice to be railroading.

Certain types of limitations are valid and certain types are not.

EDIT: This is not in any way an attack. I'd really like to figure out where I am misreading you, and why. Your DMing style, based on this thread and others, certainly has many points in common with my own.

 

[Janx]

I'll bite.

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.

You could define railroading as this, but this is the LEAST dangerous form of railroading. And it often is agreed to by the players. Furthermore, Adventure B and C often come as logical responses to the previous adventure. If in A you kill off the mooks, and Lord Evil teleports to his backup base, in all likelyhood, you will hunt him down to his base. Adventure B ought to involve that hunt and his new base (and evil plan).

I'm content to leave my take on railroading at the level of "next adventure is...", because I think that's the classical definition of a railroad, in the Dragonlance Classics sense (although DL Classics also commits other "sins" that could be considered railroading, such as NPCs who cannot die). Railroading within an adventure is another issue, and also being discussed in this thread (I think). I'm not discussing that.

See my post prior to yours here for classical explanation of railroading. Adventures running in sequence is common, but the real railroading errors occur INSIDE the adventure.

As I've said earlier in this thread - I'm discussing railroading at the campaign arc level, of which adventure occurs next, not in terms of the finite area of a dungeon or setting. By that measure, I'm sure that not even all the infinite planes would satisfy someone's strange definition of railroading as "any DM-imposed restriction whatsoever", which you again seem to be hinting that you believe in, and as we've covered earlier in the thread is a furphy.

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

For one thing, I don't use written modules. Never have. I write my own. So when I write the next adventure, I base it on what happened in the previous, and based on my prediction of what the PCs want to do, and what the NPCs will try to do. I may have a problem during the adventure when the PCs do something completely different, but that's internal to the adventure. I think it is fair to say that as a writer, I try to make my sequential adventures follow logically to each other, and I expect the commerical ones do the same. Certainly, as a GM, we've got a problem when the players decide NOT to pursue the bad guy into the next adventure.

On the otherhand, if you're running a good PC party, it is reasonable to expect them to rescue the next princess or pursue the next bad guy they hear about. Thus, it is reasonable to expect them to enter Adventure B willingly, assuming a rationally motivated party.

In fact, I would say, if as a GM, you cannot predict what the PCs will do at a high level when the hear news of "something that leads to adventure" that you have a problem with either the adventure hook, or the players.

For RC/quasqueston, the term you need is "hook-fighters" or "bait-shy" players. If a player of a PC that has a plausible motivation for pursuing a feasible hook refuses to do so, you've got a problem player.