Telling a story vs. railroading

[Dr Simon]

Well, perhaps a better expression for a benevolent form of 'railroading' ought to be 'shepherding' or some such, where the DM provides choices for the players, but with no obligation for them to follow the hooks (to avoid the non/open-GM syndrome). Some options may perhaps be more weighted than others - to give a heavy-handed version perhaps the local lord requests that the PCs go and do some dirty job for him and hints that jail might result from disobedience.

#1
In the game of a shepherd DM, the players could tell the local lord to stick his 'offer' and try to hack their way out of town. Their subsequent outlaw status and the consequences of such would be an interesting route for the campaign to go in.

#2
A rail-road DM would stack the opposing forces, fudge dice rolls or simply not allow the players to refuse the lord - 'Obviously you all agree to take his offer'.

A player such as we meet in Happyelf's argument may perceive the scenario to be rail-roading, but unless they test the situation (or know the DM well enought to guess which of #1 or #2 it will be), such a heavy-handed choice does not necessarily have to be rail-roading, per se. Sure, the DM is presenting the PCs with only a narrow range of choices, but does this mean they are rail-roading if it turns out that any of the choices are valid? And is that not more realistic anyway, as others have pointed out? A fantasy world where player characters have unlimited freedom and no responsibilities - for me, that lacks any sort of dramatic tension or interest, and you may as well just hack your way through the Monster Manual.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Also, I would have to argue that there is a region in which a litmus test is certainly possible; we ought to be able to come up with a list of things that are clearly reasonable for the DM to do. The rules of the game are probably a good place to start. Just because there will be fringes where a more subjective test is required, it does not mean that we simply accept the authority of any given player.

"There is a nebulous element in the definition, therefore we should not seek to define it" would apply to many areas apart from gaming that we, as a society, see it both fit and necessary to define.

RC

 

[Hussar]

That's the only measure that exists in any event. The opinons and preferences of the players and the GM.

What else is there? Can you dip some conceptual litmus paper into the game? Do the 3.5 rules come wiht a chart to balance the prevalence of GM fiat against the party's average level? Of course not.

Yes, there are conceptual litmus tests that we can do. It's based on communal experience. Sure, there might be disagreement, but, there are generally elements that we will almost always agree on. Using the "reasonable person" standard is an accepted practice for many things.

Simply accepting the player's views of things is not terribly useful.

I do define railroading as "a bad thing". Those things that are generally accepted as part and parcel of a DM's job - adventure design for example - I would not label as railroading. As Dr. Simon pointed out, a given situation might be a railroad or it might simply be a DM doing his job.

While, by a broad definition of railroad, both examples Dr. Simon gives are railroading, as he says, the first is really shepherding. Or, rather, it's not railroading because it's a generally accepted action by a DM.

Thus I reject Rounser's definition of railroading. Part of a DM's job is to provide adventures. If the DM says to the players, "Hey, let's play Shackled City" he's not railroading. Granted, if he's springing it as a surprise to the players and gives them no choice in the matter, it would be railroading. It's perfectly acceptable for the DM to ask the players if they want to play in a particular campaign. It is not so acceptable to bait and switch.

Thus, asking the players if they want to play in Campaign X is not railroading because it's acceptable. I really do like the term shepherding.

Conversely, we can apply an objective standard to the situation of the DM and Players in game. If we open up the DM's adventure and see that everything is planned and the players have no real choices, that's railroading. That's above and beyond the duties of the DM. It is not acceptable. However, if the DM does something that the players don't happen to like, but, is well within the bounds of the campaign setting and is fairly consistent, then it is not railroading. It's simply part of the DM's job.

Sure, there's lots of grey in the middle. I have no beefs with that. But, brushing off the entire thing and simply saying, "Well, it's railroading if someone says that it is" makes the definition of railroading very difficult to use.

Is Dragonlance a railroad? Perhaps. Depending on your point of view. There are certainly some elements I would say are, such as plot protection for certain NPC's. That is generally not considered a valid use of DM's authority to make invincible NPC's. OTOH, the set up of DL1, with the invading army and the quest to get the disks of Mishakal (sp), is perhaps not so much railroading as rather firm handed shepherding.

 

[SteveC]

I'm somewhat surprised that this thread is still alive and kicking. Like a lot of arguments on the Internet, a lot of it seems to stem from not being able to make a concrete definition of the topic at hand. If you can't agree on what railroading is, other than it's somehow a bad thing, you can't come to a consensus on how to avoid it.

My suggestion is to avoid the rhetoric and not use terms that have negative connotations but lack concrete definitions. As an example:

I am going to be running the Shackled City for my gaming group right after Gen Con. The group knows this, and I'm telling them a bit about what the adventure is going to be about specifically so they can see if it's the sort of game they want to play in and also so that they can create characters who will want to get involved with the events that happen in it.

Is that going to be a railroaded game? By some definitions, yes it will be. If the group suddenly says "hey, we've all talked about it, and we want to become pirates looking for the treasure of a lost civilization," that's great but that's also not what this game is set to be about. That's why I always talk about, well, talking to your players when you run a game, and telling your GM what kind of game you want to play when you're playing.

Having a game where you can go anywhere and do anything is an interesting and fun way to run a game, but it's not the only way to do so. I have played in several games where this was done quite well, but all too often it makes the game seem more like the old Daggerfall PC game where you can go anywhere and do anything, but things are all fairly shallow and there isn't some greater meaning to it all. Now Daggerfall was a successful game, so there are clearly people who enjoy that kind of thing...it's just not for me.

So that's my $.02...argue on.

--Steve

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm somewhat surprised that this thread is still alive and kicking. Like a lot of arguments on the Internet, a lot of it seems to stem from not being able to make a concrete definition of the topic at hand. If you can't agree on what railroading is, other than it's somehow a bad thing, you can't come to a consensus on how to avoid it.

Especially given that the thread is dedicated to defining (or re-defining, if you prefer) railroading, that doesn't seem like much of a surprise to me.

My suggestion is to avoid the rhetoric and not use terms that have negative connotations but lack concrete definitions.

I would agree, but the evidence is pretty strong that this would not be the most commonly used definition. And I didn't notice a whole horde or people saying, "Oh, the player's feelings are the only determinant? That's not what I meant!" so I have to assume that the votes mean what they seem to mean.

Which is something I, for one, am still trying to wrap my head around. :\

 

[ThirdWizard]

I do define railroading as "a bad thing".

How can it be a bad thing if some people enjoy it? If a group loves railroading, are you telling them they're having wrongbadfun? A player in my group likes railroaded campaigns, with arcs and decisions made by the DM long before the first session begins, knowing exactly how the entire campaign is going to end. He even told another DM in another group he plays in to make his background so it would fit into the story-line better. I would hate that campaign. But, he enjoys it.

So, if you label railroading as an innately bad thing, then you have to say that two DMs playing the exact same way, one with happy players and one with unhappy players, that the one with unhappy players is railroading and the one with happy players is not railroading. But, they're doing the exact same things! To me that makes no sense.

And, on an unrelated topic, let me say that some DMs can railroad sometimes and not others. It isn't an all or nothing thing. You can have an instance of a railroad without doing it often, and you can have a DM who railroads one level of the game (defined in the other thread... combat level, adventure level, campaign level, possibly others) but not on the rest.

So maybe the DM always starts the adventure with the PCs approaching the dungeon. That's railroading. But, it speeds up play and if the game is combat oriented works well. But, then he never makes his BBEG escape because he wants to use him later or forces the PCs to interact with NPCs in a certain way.

 

[SteveC]

Especially given that the thread is dedicated to defining (or re-defining, if you prefer) railroading, that doesn't seem like much of a surprise to me.

Well I certainly didn't mean to imply that there wasn't an interesting thread to be had here, far from it. What my concern is that I've seen this sort of thing way too many times where the participants in a debate can't come to the basic meeting of the minds that's necessary to have a proper discussion. That's the stage where you get a lot of post that basically say 'no, that wasn't what I meant" and arguing over the most basic points.

To my mind, a definition of a term needs to be both specific and general enough so that it can have some meaning. If railroading is any time the players don't have complete 100% freedom to do absolutely anything and have the GM instantly ready for it, then about 99.9% of all RPGs are railroads. Similarly, if the only time you railroad is when the players say "okay, we go through the door," and the GM answers, "you can't do that, at least not now," (like an old text adventure game) you almost never have railroading.

The interesting discussion is between those two lines (again, in my opinion, obviously). To give an example: I've played the Call of C'thuhlu adventure "Masks" on three different occasions, one time with an amazing GM, and the game ended each time because it is a tightly scripted scenario. At the point where it ended, we knew that the world was going to end, but we felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do to stop it, even in a "you can go and valiantly sacrifice yourself to save everyone" sort of way. It didn't seem like we had any room to move the direction the game was going!

I would agree, but the evidence is pretty strong that this would not be the most commonly used definition. And I didn't notice a whole horde or people saying, "Oh, the player's feelings are the only determinant? That's not what I meant!" so I have to assume that the votes mean what they seem to mean.

Which is something I, for one, am still trying to wrap my head around. :\

That's the problem, I think: the definition isn't at the point where either side can wrap their head around it in such a way that a discussion can be had beyond a definition.

For me, I would use this definition: Railroading is a term, within the context of the agreement that the players and the GM have come for the kind of campaign that will be played, where the actions of the players have no impact on the outcome of the game.

I think that's a functional definition that allows for a lot of different types of games to run based on the preferences of the players and their GM. If the GM is running the Slavelords or Against the Giants adventures, the players have to buy into a campaign with those enemies or you're going to be stuck. For some, both of those campaigns are going to be rail-roadish (and the Slavelords are much moreso in my opinion) but the real point is to get all of that discussion out of the way before the game starts. Johnny Carson used to say that "if you buy the premise, you'll buy the bit," and I think he was right.

If the kind of game you're looking for isn't one where the GM has preconceived notions of adventures and has a plot or theme for the game in mind, you're not going to enjoy either of those campaigns, nor would you most likely enjoy Age of Worms or Shackled City. I guess my point is, where we are at in terms of this discussion, is the fact that you should probably not play in that kind of a campaign if it isn't what you want to do.

Once we agree on the first part (the definition) we can discuss the merits of, say, the Slavelords adventures against the Giants adventures. In my opinion, the Giants modules are significantly better because they provide a framework and common enemies for the campaign, but then leave what to do ultimately up to the players. An interesting discussion would then be how to take the Slavelords and make the series more open-ended.

Again, just my $.02.

--Steve

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, if you label railroading as an innately bad thing, then you have to say that two DMs playing the exact same way, one with happy players and one with unhappy players, that the one with unhappy players is railroading and the one with happy players is not railroading. But, they're doing the exact same things! To me that makes no sense.

Do you have the same problem with HappyElf's definition, where the happiness of the players determines whether or not railroading occurs?

How can it be a bad thing if some people enjoy it? If a group loves railroading, are you telling them they're having wrongbadfun?

If you accept my definition (as Hussar, thus far, has said he does...still working on that ), then railroading requires a usurpation of player choice.

The difference is this:

Bob goes into the store, pays for it, and walks out with an apple.

Alex goes into the store, is given it, and walks out with an apple.

I go into the store, stick it in my pocket, and walk out with an apple.

On the outside, all three of us did the same thing (went into the store and walked out with an apple), but only one of us is stealing.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

For me, I would use this definition: Railroading is a term, within the context of the agreement that the players and the GM have come for the kind of campaign that will be played, where the actions of the players have no impact on the outcome of the game.

I agree with your post 100%, except that I would reword the above to

Railroading is a term, within the context of the agreement that the players and the GM have come for the kind of campaign that will be played, where the actions of the players have no impact on the outcome of the game in violation of that agreement.​

 

[Agent Oracle]

Frankly, I believe there are three kinds of railroading DM's.

1. GM's who are bad at railroading. Point A to Point B. No, nothing happens in between. No, you don't need to stop and eat. keep moving. Shut up. no, you can't take a cohort. I don't care if you do have leadership. Gods. move on allready!

2. GMs who can get away with railroading to a point: A to C, and yes, there are some variants of B's but they all lead back to the C. So the players can go to the coast or head up the mountains, they'll still wind up facing the same BBEG, just in a different setting. Problems arise though, if the players realize that their actions don't really affect the game. (which they usually realize just before hitting point C)

3. Gm's who are great at railroads: A-Z The path might seem long and meandering, but it's really as straight and narrow as it comes. Encounter A leads to B leads to C. NPC's are only described if their sidequest is critical to the story. if players start showing signs of going off the track, he has a collection of "emergencies" that will put them right back on their way... encounters that reinforce the message that The BBEG is what they really want to focus on.