D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[FrogReaver]

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?

The way I see it is if the players willingly follow the path then there is no inherent unfairness involved in keeping them on said path.

The unfairness inherent in forced railroading, forced being a bit superfluous but included for emphasis, is what defines it and why it is bad.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The way I see it is if the players willingly follow the path then there is no inherent unfairness involved in keeping them on said path.

The unfairness inherent in forced railroading, forced being a bit superfluous but included for emphasis, is what defines it and why it is bad.

Well, I just don't think it is that clear cut. What is "willingly"? How the GM frames things has a huge impact on what actions can reasonably even be attempted. If the GM constantly just frames situations where there is only one direction they can plausibly go (assuming the players don't try to do "I attack the king" type crazy stuff, which they usually don't) then the GM doesn't ever need to "block" actions that would take the players off the tracks, as none can be plausibly be made in the first place. The players might indeed have vague feeling that their actions do not matter much, but there are no specific instances of GM blocking happening that they can point out.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, I just don't think it is that clear cut. What is "willingly"? How the GM frames things has a huge impact on what actions can reasonably even be attempted. If the GM constantly just frames situations where there is only one direction they can plausibly go (assuming the players don't try to do "I attack the king" type crazy stuff, which they usually don't) then the GM doesn't ever need to "block" actions that would take the players off the tracks, as none can be plausibly be made in the first place. The players might indeed have vague feeling that their actions do not matter much, but there are no specific instances of GM blocking happening that they can point out.

I think you are focused on the wrong aspect. Focus on unfairness. IMO players willingly accept that which they deem fair and don’t willingly accept that which they deem unfair.

 

[FrogReaver]

Going to the criminal trial example. Assuming the trial process is fair we don’t ever say a court process railroaded a defendant, even if he is sent to prison against his will (in some sense). Thus, railroading stems from the unfair process. That’s what is meant about a defendant being railroaded.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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?

I am one of those that think that the term "Railroad" is a negative term and should only apply to the fail state where the DM forces the player to be or do something by negation of decisions. The example of the infinite supply of high level monks to block all paths but the correct one is railroading.

There is a campaign arc adventure(I think Tyranny of Dragons) that I read a long time ago, never ran and have mostly forgotten that is fairly linear. The PC start in a region, some some local quest but at some point the Bad Guys leave the area and go to another region. The party is supposed to infiltrate their caravan to follow them there.
This is a linear plot.
Railroading is when the party does not think of joining or shadowing the caravan and the DM forces the issue and makes them a part of the caravan.
I suppose that the term could also apply to the case where the DM flat out tells the players "Look, to get to the next part, you need to infiltrate the caravan"
Illusionism is when the DM moves the caravan destination to wherever the party happens to wander next (after a suitable travel time).

If the party does not follow the caravan but the DM supplies information as to its purpose and destination allowing Independant travel to that are, I would say that no railroading has occurred.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think you are focused on the wrong aspect. Focus on unfairness. IMO players willingly accept that which they deem fair and don’t willingly accept that which they deem unfair.

Fair to whom and how? Is it fair for GM to block action declarations that do not fit to the story they want to tell? Is it fair for the GM to just frame situations where there is only one obviously sensible action to take? I don't know, that seems like a matter of taste to me. But both seem pretty railroady to me though, especially if done continuously.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I don't know, that could just one of those low-energy "Casual DMs" (tm).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well, I just don't think it is that clear cut. What is "willingly"? How the GM frames things has a huge impact on what actions can reasonably even be attempted. If the GM constantly just frames situations where there is only one direction they can plausibly go (assuming the players don't try to do "I attack the king" type crazy stuff, which they usually don't) then the GM doesn't ever need to "block" actions that would take the players off the tracks, as none can be plausibly be made in the first place. The players might indeed have vague feeling that their actions do not matter much, but there are no specific instances of GM blocking happening that they can point out.

Then to be honest I would not consider that a railroad.
Even less so if the players are playing in an adventure arc. They have already agreed to play in a campaign where they will have to go where the adventure leads.

There is more of a case if the campaign was presented as a sandbox but really was a disguised adventure with an arc.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fair to whom and how? Is it fair for GM to block action declarations that do not fit to the story they want to tell? Is it fair for the GM to just frame situations where there is only one obviously sensible action to take? I don't know, that seems like a matter of taste to me. But both seem pretty railroady to me though, especially if done continuously.

Is your point that fairness is always in the eye of the beholder? I don’t know that I disagree. But it doesn’t change that this is what railroaded has traditionally referenced. Usually it’s a degree of unfairness that most people independently agree it’s unfair.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A published linear adventure is merely a sandbox campaign where the author has correctly predicted the choices the players were going to make.

If a scene ends and the players decide to 'go do X' because of it-- the next logical step they feel they should take because of what happened... and the adventure path's next scene is that exact thing written out because it is indeed the next "logical step" and the author knew it and assumed most players would follow it... then it's basically a "sandbox adventure" with the player's ultimate choices published beforehand and all the extraneous "missed content" that the players didn't choose removed.

And this is why I don't get hung up on the two "different styles" of adventure. They can pretty much end up being the same exact thing when you have players who follow the narrative.