Telling a story vs. railroading

[ThirdWizard]

AS I've already said, linear or pre-determined play is not bad. Railroading is bad.

And I'm saying it isn't bad.

I think it's absurd to define something as not useful simply because it's negative.

I think that railroading defined simply through Player desire is a useless definition. Under your definition, DM A and DM B can be doing exactly the same thing, and one is railroading and the other isn't because of the way the Players feel. This isn't a useful definition. We can't even give the DM advice on how to better not railroad if he wants, because that's dependant on his group's playstyle.

Any definition that involves a qualitative analysis of the group is going to be a bad definition. It means that whether something is a railroad is subjective and thus basically immune to being defined. It's like trying to define "good" or "bad," you can't strike out a positive definition of what it is. You can only say what you prefer and what you dislike. You're making the same true of railroad.

And, yes, on a messageboard defining railroading as "bad" basically means that you're going to use it mostly as a disparaging remark or in a complaint, which makes it not so useful to determine what you're actually talking about.

My definintion is more suitable to reality than any wich seeks to avoid the ral issue: what kind of choice does the player enjoy, and are thye getting it? That is reality. That is the issue.

That's not the issue. The issue is an objective definition of railroad, which you don't believe exists. I do think it exists and I think I can quite surely say if something is railroading or not, despite the fact that the Players might love or hate it.

You can give DMs lots and lots of advice without defining railroading as something inherently bad. Indeed, if you define railroading as something that can only be assessed by the Players in said game, you lose the ability to give advice. I prefer a baseline, and then when discussing you can point out that Option A is slightly railroading, but generally deemed okay, Option 2 is heavy railroading, and might be avoided if the Players don't like that, and Option 3 is more free form, with all the complications that come with that.

Thus, we can talk about gaming in a more robust way instead of just saying "See what you're group wants. Here's a questionaire."

Railroading by my definition is that wich is not in line with the preferences of the group, so that's not the issue. If the group is genuinly ok with being geased into a fedex quest, then it's not railroading by my definition.

That's my main problem with your definition. It basically sidesteps the whole question of what is railroading. It means DM A and DM B can't have a reasonable discussion on DMing involving railroading without them both agreeing on a standard to set. If there is no baseline of "this is railroading" then the whole discussion about it becomes pointless.

If you want to talk about DMs making sure their Players like their games, that's admirable. But, that's a different discussion, IMO.

I actually agree. However, if the players enjoy it, it's not railroading is the point I'm trying to make. If there's no foul, then it's not railroading, by my definition of railroading. Which, actually, is fairly close to HappyElf's definition.

My main problem with that, to repeat my position, is that two DMs can run a game exactly the same way, shoehorning PCs into doing what they want them to do to further the plot, but one is railroading because the Players aren't happy and the other isn't railroading because the PCs are happy.

To me that's like saying that two DMs running a low power game with lots of moral ambiguity are running two different kinds of games: DM A's players are having fun so he's running grim 'n gritty, DM B's players aren't having fun so he isn't running grm 'n gritty. That makes no sense. But, replace it with DM controlling what the PCs do, and it fits railroading?

As I said in my post, there are a number of actions which a DM does which override the player's choice. Many of these are considered perfectly acceptable actions of a DM. Deciding that the party meets in a tavern is about as railroad as you can get. However, since it moves the game along, it's generally considered acceptable.

And because it is acceptable, it isn't considered railroading? Why not just say it is railroading, but an accepted form and not necessarily a bad thing? Why not say that some groups are more comfortable with railroading at the beginning of a session in order to move along the action and get more game in? Why must the Players be unhappy with it for it to be railroading?

DM A: You're sitting in a tavern when you see-
PC: Hey! Why are we in a tavern? We ended the last game sleeping in bed!

DM B: You're sitting in a tavern when you see your old nemisis Snake walk in.
PC: Did he see us? I try to stay hidden and move toward the entrance.

Why is DM A trying to railroad his group and MD B not? They both did the same thing!

I agree that there is lots of grey in the definition. And the level of railroading that is acceptable will vary from group to group. However, we should be able to come up with a fairly decent scale of railroading that most people can agree with. Everything below a certain point is, by and large, unacceptable and is railroading. Everthing above a certain point is, by and large, accepted as part of DMing and is NOT railroading. The stuff in the middle is a honking big grey area, but, that can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

That I agree with, but it seems to go against the idea that the definition is subjective.

 

[happyelf]

Now, that I agree with to some degree. However, there is a real danger here if the players figure they are entitled to certain things.

OH GOOD HEAVENS, WHAT A TERRIBLE THOUGHT!

You're right, I can think of few more terifying notions than players with a sense of entitlement!

A good GM recognises that preference is paramount, and sets as a priority the frank discussion of the same. That doesn't mean they have to pander to the preferences of ever player they meet- not every player is suitable for every game or every group. But that doens't ghance the fact that the players are here to have fun, and different players have fun different ways.

For example, if the players say that charming their character's is a railroad, then I can't use vampires without running the danger of making my players very unhappy.

Yes, as shocking as it may sound, not every player wants the same things from a game. Different players liek different things. Some players simply cannot stand things that other players will happily endure, or evne look forward to. If you want to run a good game for your player, then your priority should be the things your players enjoy.

How often do I have torepeat these simple, obvious facts?

Yes, we should always talk to our players. However, I do not think DM's should be held hostage to what the player's want.

Nobody's suggesting that. I'm simply suggesting that the GM doens't get to let themself off the hook if they do something the player doesn't like. They have to accept responsibility for what they have done.

There are times when the DM is going to do bad things to the player's characters.

You're still not getting it. Correction: you're nto even trying to get it. Why continue to discuss my definntion if you don't have any interest in understanding it?

Sometimes that means things like charm or turning to stone, or being Held or polymorphed or whatever. Since the players are likely not going to be terribly happy with any of those options, does that mean if I use any of them I'm railroading?

It means that if you spend all game controlling the players actions, and they don't like it, you don't get to play semantics when they complain. The problem is the same problem regardless of what type of euphamisms you'd like to employ.

This is why I have a problem with your definition HappyElf. There are far too many perfectly legitimate DM actions included for my tastes.

They're not perfectly legitimate. Quite literally, that is what they are not. They are legitimate isofar as the group finds them legitimate. That does not mean the players get to overrule the GM, but ultimatly their continued participation and contribution relies on their endorsement and enjoyment.

If the sole judge of railroading is not some sort of objective scale based on experience but is rather what the player's happen to think, then there is a real risk of player entitlement creeping in.

Again, I find it' appaling and absurd that you'd define player entitlement as something bad. And again, you talk about objectivity and experience while ignoring the real objective facts and lessons of experience wich inevitably lead any rational actor to the undeniable reality that issues liek this rely a great deal on the preferences and tastes of the group.

 

[rounser]

The sort of macro-railroading that Rounser and others have a problem with I have difficulty even comprehending as railroading.

I don't have a problem with it. I've said so multiple times. Would a campaign be better without it? Probably, but there's much more work involved. It'd be nice to have hologram miniatures too, but the game is still fun without them. Hey, deja vu, I said that before! Can you see the difference between "would be nice" and "is bad without"???

Can you stop assuming that I have a problem, when the people with the problem are the people you said you agreed with? They're the ones desperate to prove that this that and the other aren't railroading, not me! They've started multiple threads in this desperate attempt to prove to the world that they aren't railroaders, because railroading "doesn't fit the definition of what we do, and here's proof!"

I think that this is a natural assumption to make for those who have problems with the negative connotations of the term and seem unable to divorce the meaning of the term from their associations with it as being a criticism of their play style: to assume that everyone else thinks just like them, and takes offense at being called a railroader. Even telling people I don't have a problem with the term doesn't work; you just ignore me and make up stuff in an attempt to have a convenient strawman argument to strike down, like Raven Crowking tried to.

I even spelled out the reasons why things are the way they are, that I can see and understand why adventure paths must be so A to B to C, and you still didn't listen. You just assumed I was criticising?

No wonder this thread is going nowhere.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think that railroading is subjective. Your first quote from me was me misspeaking. The second one is far closer.

I can see what you mean ThirdWizard, but, by and large, railroading has such negative connotations that trying to use it without dragging along that baggage is difficult. I would rather there was a separate term for positive railroading. I really do like the idea of shepherding.

I would see the entrance to the WLD as shepherding. I announced that I was playing the WLD and the players said they wanted to do it. The WLD doesn't work as well if you can go in and out freely - part of the adventure is the fact that you have to make do with what you can find, not what you can buy at the local magic shop. That was all spelled out up front, so there was no surprise on my players.

Is it a railroad? Technically yes. I am stripping player choice. However, it's acceptable railroading.

If someone says the WLD is a railroad, I would strongly disagree with them. It's about the most open ended adventure campaign you could have, save for that first bit. The players have almost complete control over what happens. I would say that the opening is shepherding which leads to a very non-linear game.

Really, my problem with using possitive railroading as a term is that it carries too many negative connotations.

 

[happyelf]

Well I'm certain you believe that and perhaps I would agree with you too. Would you care to summarize what your definition is?

Railroading is a removel of player choice and/or control, wich the player finds objectionable. Different players object to different kinds of restructions on their actions, wich is why so many people have different takes on what railroading is- they're all right, for them.

You see, I think we can agree on this for the most part, but when you say "having a villain cast a charm spell could be railroading" I guess I'm really not sure where you're coming from.

I mention charm spells for two reasons, first because they are 'by the rules', but still have obvious potential for abuse by the GM. Many would defend such a method but but it's a pretty obvious case of a completly 'legit' or 'logical' action by the GM wich could still be used to control the PC's actions in a pretty blatant fashion. And of course if the GM takes to using charm spells a lot, they effectivly render the player's control of the character meaningless. Overuse of charm spells and other kinds of mental manipulation are a pretty obvious instance of something many people would see as railroading.

Second, even in cases where charm spells are used sparingly, some players will still hate them. I've observed this kind of mindset in players several times. Some players have a loatthing of stuff that takes the character's will away from them. Many of these players don't mind if their character is attacked, even killed, or subdued and imprisoned, but they draw a line between that and effects that warp the character's mind. That's a matter of preference, and some people may not see that as railroading, but if you keep dumping charm spells or geas onto a player with that mindset, they're quickly going to grow frustrated, no matter how 'legit' a GM may claim such actions as being.

Suppose a player is playing a rogue on an adventure into the forgotten crypts of doom<tm>. Does the player have a right to call railroading on the fact that most (if not all) of their enemies in the adventure are immune to the greater part of their attack?

Actually that's a pretty commonly recognised instance of bad GMing according to some sources. Setting up an adventure that doesn't let the player use their character's abilities is something some people would see as a big no-no. Other people think it's no big deal.

Either way I don't think it's nesecarily railroading since it's not clear how choice acts in the situation, but it's definitly a matter of preference. Some groups will be fine wiht situations like this, others will object quite strenuously.

And I'm saying it isn't bad.

That's not how I define railroading.

I think that railroading defined simply through Player desire is a useless definition.

I think any definition wich ignores player desire is utterly worthless. I don't just think that, it's obviously, blatantly true.

Under your definition, DM A and DM B can be doing exactly the same thing, and one is railroading and the other isn't because of the way the Players feel.

Yup!

This isn't a useful definition.

Yes it is, and more to the point, it's vastly better than the otehr definitions being offered, wich are not only useless, but potentially damaging to a group.

We can't even give the DM advice on how to better not railroad if he wants, because that's dependant on his group's playstyle.

Yes we can. As I've already said, the key to avoiding railroading is to comunicate with your players, figure out what they do and do not like, and what kind of control they're ok wiht yo having over the plot. Sometimes that may lead to ireconcilable differences within the group, or (more likely) some kind of compromise, but the issue remains the same.

This is much better advice than the alternative, wich is to simply ignore the problem if the definition doesn't define it as railroading.

Any definition that involves a qualitative analysis of the group is going to be a bad definition.

Actually that is the onyl type of definition that isn't going to be a bad definition.

It means that whether something is a railroad is subjective and thus basically immune to being defined.

No it's not, i've been defining it for several pages now.

It's like trying to define "good" or "bad," you can't strike out a positive definition of what it is. You can only say what you prefer and what you dislike. You're making the same true of railroad.

All i'm doing 'to railroad' is giving it a useful, functional definintion, rather than letting people off the hook for doing something they're players may have a problem with.

And, yes, on a messageboard defining railroading as "bad" basically means that you're going to use it mostly as a disparaging remark or in a complaint, which makes it not so useful to determine what you're actually talking about.

Yes after all what do complaints or negative remarks have to do with anything? I mean just because a player is complaining about a game, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it!

That's not the issue.

Yes it is.

The issue is an objective definition of railroad, which you don't believe exists.

There's a difference between obejective and arbitary. My definintion is objective. The definitions others are putting fourth are arbitary, not objective. They are indeed more subjective than mind, since they rely on the subjective assumptions people armaking about, for instance, what a legitimate form of control is.

I do think it exists and I think I can quite surely say if something is railroading or not, despite the fact that the Players might love or hate it.

Yes and you do this based on your own prefernces as a GM, and your unwillingness to accept that some of the things you may do reside in a category you do not wish them to reside in.

You can give DMs lots and lots of advice without defining railroading as something inherently bad.

Yes, you can advise them to ingore their player's, you can advise them to trick them or lie to them, and, to take an example above, you can advise them on how best to avoid that horrible scourge, players entitlement!

I am not convinced that any of this advice you speculate about would be even remotely positive.

Indeed, if you define railroading as something that can only be assessed by the Players in said game, you lose the ability to give advice.

No you don't. You jsut lose the ability to give one kind fo bad advice, that being "ignore what your players want!"

I prefer a baseline, and then when discussing you can point out that Option A is slightly railroading, but generally deemed okay, Option 2 is heavy railroading, and might be avoided if the Players don't like that, and Option 3 is more free form, with all the complications that come with that.

Where's your baseline? You clearly have no idea how widely playstyles vary in this hobby.

Thus, we can talk about gaming in a more robust way instead of just saying "See what you're group wants. Here's a questionaire."

Again, you're talking about a less robust method, not a more robust one.

That's my main problem with your definition. It basically sidesteps the whole question of what is railroading.

No it doesn't, it just doesn't define it in a way you find gratifying. Definitions wich ignore player preference are the ones doing the side-stepping.

It means DM A and DM B can't have a reasonable discussion on DMing involving railroading without them both agreeing on a standard to set.

Yes that's right, people can't discuss something unles they first define their terms. That's how it works. This is news to you?

If there is no baseline of "this is railroading" then the whole discussion about it becomes pointless.

No it does't, in actual fact it stopps being pointless.

If you want to talk about DMs making sure their Players like their games, that's admirable. But, that's a different discussion, IMO.

No it's not. The issue of player choice and input is one of the core issues relating to running a game.

 

[Hussar]

Yes after all what do complaints or negative remarks have to do with anything? I mean just because a player is complaining about a game, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it!

Hang on. Hold the phone. How does the above jive with:

Railroading is a removel of player choice and/or control, wich the player finds objectionable. Different players object to different kinds of restructions on their actions, wich is why so many people have different takes on what railroading is- they're all right, for them.

Which is it? Is railroading determined by player objection or is it not? If the player is objecting, by your definition, he's being railroaded regardless of all other considerations.

Now do you see the problem with your definition? If a player can complain about railroading but it "doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with it (the game)", then how can we use this definition of railroading to discuss anything?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Having read this whole giant thread, I agree wholeheartedly (I think) with RC, Hussar, and Quas. Now let me go ahead and shoot my mouth off

Wow.

That was a fantastic post. Eloquent, to the point, and something I can agree with 100%.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, I find it' appaling and absurd that you'd define player entitlement as something bad. And again, you talk about objectivity and experience while ignoring the real objective facts and lessons of experience wich inevitably lead any rational actor to the undeniable reality that issues liek this rely a great deal on the preferences and tastes of the group.

I would have to say that player entitlement, such as it is, is a good thing. However, I would also say that all entitlement comes with a commensurate responsibility. This doesn't change from DM to player, or if you are talking about role-playing games or civics. The rights you gain within a given context are balanced by responsibilities you have within that context, or the context itself spins out of balance very, very quickly.

The problem that I have with your definition is that it removes any onus from the player requiring rationality or reasonable justification. If something is railroading (or anything else) just because I say it is, and I can say it is just because I don't like it, then what responsibility to be fair do I have within a given system?

OTOH, if we agree that there is a baseline, and that things can be unpleasant but fair, the onus is on all parties to accept some things because they are fair (be it that your pet NPC got killed, or you got charmed, or the game got called on account of work).

Especially when discussing prejorative terms, I strongly feel that it is necessary to use definitions that require a certain level of maturity (and responsibility) on both sides of the screen.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't have a problem with it. I've said so multiple times.

Cut & Paste when it is obvious that others are not understanding what you are trying to say isn't always the most effective means to clarify your position.

From your later comments I was able to go back and see what you were trying to say. That doesn't mean that it didn't confuse me (and from the responses, others) when you first said it. And there is a very real difference between misunderstanding and intentionally misrepresenting.

Can you stop assuming that I have a problem, when the people with the problem are the people you said you agreed with? They're the ones desperate to prove that this that and the other aren't railroading, not me! They've started multiple threads in this desperate attempt to prove to the world that they aren't railroaders, because railroading "doesn't fit the definition of what we do, and here's proof!"

Actually, I described what I do when starting a campaign, and it includes multiple adventure sites from the get-go, and multiple choices at every turn. The idea that one must be trying to cover up some sin because one seeks a fair and reasonable definition is a bit questionable.

I haVe found that the best games I run begin with me begining an area with a lot of possible adventures, a strong adventure hook for a "big" dungeon that the PCs know they cannot tackle starting out, and a strong adventure hook for a "maiden voyage" adventure. But the area is literally seeded so that the PCs can go in any direction and seek out something. This is, IMHO, one of the real draws of the Wilderlands setting -- PCs can wander about, involving themselves in all sorts of things.​

Even telling people I don't have a problem with the term doesn't work; you just ignore me and make up stuff in an attempt to have a convenient strawman argument to strike down, like Raven Crowking tried to.

Yeah, that's exactly what I tried to do.....

You know, for someone who's worried about people putting words into his mouth, you seem awfully willing to do it yourself. So what is this, then, misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation?

If one wants to see a classic example of a strawman, one need go no farther than post 135 (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2960712&postcount=135):

If this is true, though, then knowingly following an adventure path isn't railroading.

Yes Raven, an adventure path with a set order of adventures to be played one after the other that PCs cannot change no matter what they do or no matter what choices they make is not railroading in any way shape or form. That's obviously what you and Quasqueton want to hear, so there, I'm giving it to you and you can do a happy dance or whatever it is you do.

I'll grant that I misread you, and that as a result I misrepresented your opinion. For which I have apologized. More than once. And I meant it.

But, I hope you understand why I view your above statements as slightly hypocritical.

RC

 

[rounser]

But, I hope you understand why I view your above statements as slightly hypocritical.

That post was stating the opposite of my premise. You disagree with my premise, don't you? You certainly give that impression, but feel free to correct me. If you do, you agree with this:

an adventure path with a set order of adventures to be played one after the other that PCs cannot change no matter what they do or no matter what choices they make is not railroading in any way shape or form.

...because that, in less stressed terms, is the very opposite of my premise. You can put spins on things like "if the players don't try to get off the DM's railroad tracks, it's not railroading", or "if the players agree to play an adventure path, it's not railroading", but such considerations are irrelevant to the accuracy of the above statement, because you still agree with it despite such clauses because it's stated in the negative: You don't think it's railroading. Whether the PCs actually attempt to make choices that challenge the railroading doesn't matter, because even if they do we're still playing an adventure path which doesn't cater for such choice.

Why, then, do you think that that statement is a straw man argument?