D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Piperken]

I agree to go out with friends. We decide, after some back and forth, that we prefer to go to a coffee and tea shop.

At the coffee and tea shop, there is a menu of what kinds of coffee and tea drinks one can order. We discover to our surprise, that the venue also offers coffee and tea drinks that have alcohol added, as they have a bar as well.

The owners of the coffee and tea bar, we also discover to our delight, have a daily offering that is a special. Something that is not on the menu.

One friend mulls over options then declares they're not in the mood for either coffee or tea, and mention they've been advised recently to avoid alcohol. They'd be fine with a Shirley Temple, which conveniently can be made.

Everyone has to spend time with the menu because there are so many choices! Some decide to order tea lattes instead of the coffee they had in mind. One person really likes the special they see on the sign board, and gets that.

Everyone's drink is to their liking; much conversation is had.

When it comes time to part, we decide that we'd like to come to this place again.

 

[TwoSix]

I understand this thinking (and @pemerton made this point in one of the other threads and I do not feel he was wrong given his playstyle) but if we use the label in this way for all these games/adventures do we require further terminology, do you think, for more restrictive railroads either by design or by the GM?

I'm always in favor of concise, recognizable terminology. Getting there, though....

My personal definitions:

1) "Railroad" is a game designed around reaching a certain endpoint. It goes from A -> Z. The fact that the route might bypass some points, or have a decision point in the middle, doesn't change that.
2) The pejorative portions of "railroad" are really about illusionism and violation of social contract.

 

[payn]

I'm always in favor of concise, recognizable terminology. Getting there, though....

My personal definitions:

1) "Railroad" is a game designed around reaching a certain endpoint. It goes from A -> Z. The fact that the route might bypass some points, or have a decision point in the middle, doesn't change that.
2) The pejorative portions of "railroad" are really about illusionism and violation of social contract.

So all games are railroads. Adventure paths encourage staying on the train for a long haul (campaign) sandbox encourages getting off one train at anytime to get on another.

It’s only bad when the players have no choice in the matter.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

It's only bad when the Players feel like they're being railroaded.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but as soon as something is picked and fleshed out by GM it’s an instant railroad, right?

No. Notice I said that the DM knows what's going to happen in the end, like an adventure path. The DM framing a new complication in the next scene is just how to play standard RPGs!

If the DM knows the game is going to go from 1st to 10th level, and that the PCs are going to track down the three Orbs of Elemental Macguffin in order to enter Gozar the Gozarian's palace on Limbo and save the duchy (unless there's a TPK), that's a railroad.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm always in favor of concise, recognizable terminology. Getting there, though....

My personal definitions:

1) "Railroad" is a game designed around reaching a certain endpoint. It goes from A -> Z. The fact that the route might bypass some points, or have a decision point in the middle, doesn't change that.
2) The pejorative portions of "railroad" are really about illusionism and violation of social contract.

I would prefer some other terms for no. 1 though. I think "linear" is appropriate if there is only one path. I suppose path dependant or path constrained. Bounded perhaps.

I agree that the railroad is a fail state. The tracks are showing.

I would also add that many adventure path like campaigns are not necessarily linear but are usually path constrained. There are certain events that must occur to reach the endpoint.
For instance BG3 has a number of endpoints but there is an event at the beginning of Act 3 that must occur and has very few viable outcomes (and excludes the one I would have most preferred to follow).

 

[Mort]

So all games are railroads. Adventure paths encourage staying on the train for a long haul (campaign) sandbox encourages getting off one train at anytime to get on another.

It’s only bad when the players have no choice in the matter.

Which is why I prefer to only have Railroad apply when the players really have no choice in the matter. Keeps things from being confusing.

And keeps from the inevitable follow-up of: do you mean "good or neutral" railroad or "bad" railroad?

 

[TwoSix]

Which is why I prefer to only have Railroad apply when the players really have no choice in the matter. Keeps things from being confusing.

But that's why I don't like that usage; it camouflages the fact that having choices as a player doesn't mean the overall game doesn't have an expected endpoint (i.e. a railroad).

There's lots of choices on a railroad! There are dozens of cars and hundreds of seats. I can sit by myself or try and talk to people. I can take a local or express train, I can pick the timing, there might even be multiple routes.

But if I'm constrained to starting at Boston and ending in Washington DC, it's a railroad.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, but isn't erroneous to point out that the conventional wisdom in the 1990s, which the Forge theories were written to rebut, was that the DM should be in complete control of the story.

RPG design was pretty ossified around the turn of the century; the Forge was just one of the many responses to that engendered by the burgeoning internet and the ability to have non-local conversations around these topics.

But Edwards definitely isn't wrong to point out what was, at the time, a very common play concept.

Right, and like I said, it was a valuable discussion to have.

 

[NN]

Railroading is admittedly hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

I well remember when I ran modules for the Living Arcanis campaign during the 3.5E days. One module I ran was a high-level module. While the players are visiting someone, a riot breaks out in the streets. The players are encouraged by the NPC to go to a different NPC's house. The DM is explicitly instructed that he has an infinite number of 20th-level monks in the crowd to prevent the PCs from going anywhere else. Like, by this point you've done a bunch of modules in the city and could have a lot of friendly contacts you might be worried about or need the help of. But no.

That's a railroad.

If it had been a low level adventure, where normal town rioters would be a deadly threat, and going to the other house a no-brainer…
… would it be a “railroad”?

I think not.

Its not the constraint of player choice thats the problem.

Its the constraint of choice clashing against game world sense.