D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[zarionofarabel]

I've seen people pretty actually claim that anything but a complete open sandbox wasn't even an RPG. Unsurprisingly, they were awfully old-school in other ways, too.

Well that doesn't make sense!?! I mean, if is played on a table top (or vtt), features role-playing, and has codified rules making it a game you play...how the heck would it not be a TTRPG?!? That's just a weirdly narrow definition. People really claim that???

 

[pemerton]

Well sure, but I did address that separately. "3: The first part is just false, sandboxes can surprise anyone. 'Narrative twist' requires an established narrative, so that's, again, 'Who likes dogs? They only bark, they never meow.' "

If it were simply a desire for novelty and surprise, then that's entirely reasonable, but is really just a request for better quality. That is, a well-constructed sandbox should not be "empty". The clear implication from the statement was that it should be a "narrative twist", which requires a narrative, much like the other complaints (e.g. about an unsatisfying "endgame").

My point is that there "pre-plotted" and "sandbox" don't exhaust the possibilities in RPGing. It's possible to have surprises, twists, arcs, story and the like without pre-plotting. Without an "established narrative" in the sense of a pre-plotted one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well that doesn't make sense!?! I mean, if is played on a table top (or vtt), features role-playing, and has codified rules making it a game you play...how the heck would it not be a TTRPG?!? That's just a weirdly narrow definition. People really claim that???

Its not common, but I've hit it more than once. When I pointed out that there were whole genres of games that excluded, they outright said they might be games but since they constrained player choice, they weren't "real RPGs".

 

[zarionofarabel]

Its not common, but I've hit it more than once. When I pointed out that there were whole genres of games that excluded, they outright said they might be games but since they constrained player choice, they weren't "real RPGs".

Well, that's just...dumb.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, that's just...dumb.

I believe it's because they don't think you are "roleplaying" when you do that sort of thing. They would construe it either as "rollplaying", e.g. simply executing rules in a dry/robotic way, or as lacking the taking-on-of-a-role, and instead being merely a slightly improvised take on being an actor in a stage play. So like, if you have Hamlet but the actors are permitted to ad-lib their lines, sort of thing.

I obviously disagree quite strenuously with this perspective, even though I am also pretty opposed to railroading (as I define it).

 

[MichaelSomething]

My point is that there "pre-plotted" and "sandbox" don't exhaust the possibilities in RPGing. It's possible to have surprises, twists, arcs, story and the like without pre-plotting. Without an "established narrative" in the sense of a pre-plotted one.

That happens all the time for me in the Maid RPG! D&D, not so much.

 

[pemerton]

That happens all the time for me in the Maid RPG! D&D, not so much.

I've done it in 4e D&D and AD&D. In the latter case, it involves somewhat disregarding, in play, the resource-management aspects of the system (or at least downplaying them). My AD&D play in this style was with two multi-classed thief PCs.

 

[FrogReaver]

Now y'all got me wondering why there isn't a new term to replace "sandbox" as "sandbox" has negative connotations attached to it.

Sandbox is empty! Sandbox is meandering and incoherent! Sandbox can't contain suprises or narrative twists! Sandbox has no, or ultimately unsatisfying, endgame! Sandbox is random meaningless nonsense! Sandbox lacks story arc!

I mean, basically the whole reason "linear adventure" was coined as a term was to divorce that playstyle from the negative connotations attached to the "railroad" moniker. Why do "sandbox" proponents continue to use the term despite, or in the face of, the negative connotations attached to that playstyle.

Sorry...just wondering...

Because railroad has a negative connotation established long before rpging. Example: ‘The innocent defendant was railroaded in the backwood southern court.’

The elements are the same here as in rpging. Forced outside the bounds of fairness + predetermined ending.

Sandbox has no negative connotation. There may be empty sandboxes but many are filled with toys and so the negativity depends on the the particular characteristics of the particular sandbox. This is not the case with ‘railroad’ which has traditionally been a negative in non rpg contexts.

 

[Retros_x]

Does the referee negate player agency to preserve their preferred outcome?

That’s railroading.

This is precisely what I thought the common definition to railroading. I was confused when OP stated there was no definition. Using that definition, railroading is not a playstyle but a bad DM practice that often but not exclusively appears in the playstyle of linear games. Linear games are an actual playstyle, but can be quite fun and are not bad in general. People who dislike linear playstyle tend to dismiss it as railroading, but that is not a proper use of the term and just a derogative.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't quite understand what the definition of "a linear game" is. Because if it is literally linear, from A to B to C etc, no room for deviation or change of the player actions to affect the outcome, I really do not see how it is not a railroad, albeit possibly one the players willingly follow. Or is that the difference? Railroading is defined as the GM using force to prevent the players from deviating from the path, but if on the linear adventure the players never try to deviate from the path then technically such force is not needed?