D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[TwoSix]

I was thinking of games like Eat the Reich or The Mountain Witch, which, as I understand them, have significant constraints and are also not intended for long term play.

Yea, I just don't think the term "railroad" has a lot of salience for those "short blast" games, or something like Honey Heist and other one-pagers.

It's like, you could technically define a tree as an invertebrate, but it's so unnecessary it's just pretty much incorrect. Same kind of deal for me.

 

[zarionofarabel]

The whole BG3 thing is a great example as to why I fail to see how "railroad" and "linear adventure" are definitions of different playstyles. Sure the outcomes of decision points may vary, but in every single playthrough the decision points remain the same. No matter how many times I play BG3, I'm still going to end up in Baldur's Gate, no matter what, Baldur's Gate is the predetermined endpoint. No matter how many times I play BG3, I will never be able to go to Waterdeep.

 

[payn]

The whole BG3 thing is a great example as to why I fail to see how "railroad" and "linear adventure" are definitions of different playstyles. Sure the outcomes of decision points may vary, but in every single playthrough the decision points remain the same. No matter how many times I play BG3, I'm still going to end up in Baldur's Gate, no matter what, Baldur's Gate is the predetermined endpoint. No matter how many times I play BG3, I will never be able to go to Waterdeep.

Railroad isnt a play style, it’s at best the illusion of choice on the GMs part and an unenjoyable enforcement at that.

Linear games may have campaign conceits and natural conclusions like Balders Gate ending in Baldurs Gate, but they are flexible enough to allow player input and adjustment of the meta plot and endgame. As run by a person and not a video game of course.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Yea, I just don't think the term "railroad" has a lot of salience for those "short blast" games, or something like Honey Heist and other one-pagers.

It's like, you could technically define a tree as an invertebrate, but it's so unnecessary it's just pretty much incorrect. Same kind of deal for me.

I wasn't really thinking of Honey Heist or one-page games, but, then, I pretty much never am.

But I don't know that I want to split out games based on length of the intended play experience either or get too far into the weeds on what sets of games qualify as RPGs for the sale is this discussion. Setting aside the games I mentioned, I can certainly imagine a long term D&D game, for instance, where the last scene was known in the first session, perhaps in all its particulars, to all players that was nevertheless not a railroad because that long middle section leading up to it is wide open.

 

[TwoSix]

But I don't know that I want to split out games based on length of the intended play experience either or get too far into the weeds on what sets of games qualify as RPGs for the sale is this discussion. Setting aside the games I mentioned, I can certainly imagine a long term D&D game, for instance, where the last scene was known in the first session, perhaps in all its particulars, to all players that was nevertheless not a railroad because that long middle section leading up to it is wide open.

I just think the length of the game is generally a good proxy for the amount of overall decision space and branching that the system allows. For a game with a relatively low amount of branching (like in a short game), the impact of knowing the destination is lessened because we started play with a lot of assumptions about where we'd end up.

As for the wide-open middle game; assuming the "wide-open" decision space in the middle is legit, I think the ending agreed upon at the start is more like a de facto epilogue scene than something where the game is steered to always end up in that direction. The actual "consequential" finale is the penultimate scene before the agreed-upon ending.

 

[Mort]

I wasn't really thinking of Honey Heist or one-page games, but, then, I pretty much never am.

But I don't know that I want to split out games based on length of the intended play experience either or get too far into the weeds on what sets of games qualify as RPGs for the sale is this discussion. Setting aside the games I mentioned, I can certainly imagine a long term D&D game, for instance, where the last scene was known in the first session, perhaps in all its particulars, to all players that was nevertheless not a railroad because that long middle section leading up to it is wide open.

I have long wanted to do a campaign - where it starts at "the end."

Namely, first session is the group at 20th level and they get brutally wiped out by whatever the big threat is, as it completely overwhelms them (tricky, but possible to a 20th level party).

The scene (after the wipeout) then goes back to the group, just formed or otherwise at low level having experienced a group vision of the above. There will then be a constant background element of how did we get "there" and what can we do to avoid that outcome?

Maybe even flash forward to the "end" scene periodically and address how the groups actions/roster changes etc. have changed/are changing that ending.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Railroad isnt a play style, it’s at best the illusion of choice on the GMs part and an unenjoyable enforcement at that.

Linear games may have campaign conceits and natural conclusions like Balders Gate ending in Baldurs Gate, but they are flexible enough to allow player input and adjustment of the meta plot and endgame. As run by a person and not a video game of course.

Yeah, my bad, I guess I shouldn't have used the term "playstyle" and instead of said "things" in general.

As I said in an earlier post, from a functional standpoint the only difference I can see between "railroad" and "linear adventure" is player buy in. Both function the same. The GM (or adventure author, or video game designer) determines what scenes/encounters are going to happen and the players are either forced to, or voluntarily, engage with those scenes/encounters. Whereas supposedly, in a "sandbox" game, scenes/encounters are not predetermined, and instead develop organically based on narrative momentum.

The again, I have encountered the idea that all "sandbox" games are actually "railroads" simply because, as nothing is predetermined, the GM is always manipulating the outcome of the narrative to suit their vision. The whole "Quantum Ogre" thing. In a "sandbox" game ALL Ogres are of the Quantum variety, so how could the players ever have true agency?

At best all three terms are muddy at best, and meaningless at worst.

 

[payn]

Yeah, my bad, I guess I shouldn't have used the term "playstyle" and instead of said "things" in general.

As I said in an earlier post, from a functional standpoint the only difference I can see between "railroad" and "linear adventure" is player buy in. Both function the same. The GM (or adventure author, or video game designer) determines what scenes/encounters are going to happen and the players are either forced to, or voluntarily, engage with those scenes/encounters. Whereas supposedly, in a "sandbox" game, scenes/encounters are not predetermined, and instead develop organically based on narrative momentum.

Our experiences are not the same then. I’ve had organic development in linear games based on narrative momentum. I’ve been railroaded and it is definitely not the same.

The again, I have encountered the idea that all "sandbox" games are actually "railroads" simply because, as nothing is predetermined, the GM is always manipulating the outcome of the narrative to suit their vision. The whole "Quantum Ogre" thing. In a "sandbox" game ALL Ogres are of the Quantum variety, so how could the players ever have true agency?

At best all three terms are muddy at best, and meaningless at worst.

It certainly does help to claim everything is the same in the end.