D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

Other than the sample ones that I listed in the post you were responding to?
Pacing and tension are functions of plot. And the fact that an author might not have an outlined a plot before writing doesn't change the impact of the plot as a reader.

We're talking about the player's experience at the table, is my understanding. And the contrast between experiencing a story and the agency of the players to drive their own experiences within the story, and the incompatibility of the two.

My thesis is that a pre-published adventure can either tell a story (to be "like a novel or movie"), or it can set up the pieces to allow the players to construct their own story. To me, you appeared to be asserting that this isn't a binary, and that adventures can do both. I'm simply confused as to what aspects of "like a novel" are preserved if "plotted" is removed.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I mean that there doesn't seem to be a coherent definition of "linear adventure" that is impossible to answer. If people merely use it to mean "a non-sandbox adventure" then I think term "linear" is a colossal misnomer. You can easily have a game with more tightly focused premise than a sandbox has, without having a predetermined outcome or course the events has to take.
Are you not following what people mean when you say these things, or are you just taking exception to the idea that the words aren't being used "correctly?" My wife will tell me that I sometimes (more in that past) had a tendency to compulsively correct little nitpicky and pedantic details rather than just go with it. I had to stop doing that when the urge struck me because it's throwing a heavy, wet blanket over any and all social interactions. Just go with it, dude. If you understand what people mean when they say things, then react to the content of what they're saying, not the semantics of their words. If you don't understand, ask them. If you wouldn't use those words that way, just accept it for purposes of the discussion instead of trying to force everyone to accept your definition. Otherwise, you are the reason why these discussions never actually happen and get bogged down in arguing semantics. Discussion only happens when you get past that. If you understand what someone means, engage with that instead of how they say it. Resist the urge to be the semantic correctness police.
 
Last edited:

I mean that there doesn't seem to be a coherent definition of "linear adventure" that is impossible to answer. If people merely use it to mean "a non-sandbox adventure" then I think term "linear" is a colossal misnomer. You can easily have a game with more tightly focused premise than a sandbox has, without having a predetermined outcome or course the events has to take.
Ah, but this last part... Linear also means singular or one dimension focus. If the campaign premise is to find and hunt vampires, and the players decide to to become tomb raiders or pirates instead, they are leaving the linear focus.

The linear stories will be connected around hunting vampires, but the outcomes are not predetermined. The PCs may find and kill the vampire, or the vampire might kill one or all of them. They might wound the vampire, but it escapes. The sotry continues, but it will involve vampires and the PCs hunting them for this particular linear campaign.

A railroad, on the other hand, does have a predetermined outcome and it happens exactly as the GM intends and the players have no say in it whether thats clearly stated or delivered via illusion.
 

Indeed. If my players enjoyed a lot more tactical depth and drawn-out combat, which I don't really care much about, then I'm not likely to adapt to their preferences very well, and I'd be better suited for not running for this group. This isn't always possible, because most people play with their friends, and their friends might not all have the same tastes, but ideally, the best games are clearly those in which the whole group is on the same page about what is best in gaming and all work towards maximizing that element of the experience.
Indeed. It took me some time to realize my best friends are the worst gamers. I had to meet them where they are at. Once I had the right expectations I could enjoy the game more. I also realized if I wanted to meet my original expectations, I had to look elsewhere.
 

Then maybe it's just better to not use those words?
It is not just the words, it is anything relating to a particular commonly recurring phenomenon, railroading, simulation, narrative, etc. These things are strange attractors in discourse here and the conversation will start to spiral in one or other when it crops up.
 

Indeed. It took me some time to realize my best friends are the worst gamers. I had to meet them where they are at. Once I had the right expectations I could enjoy the game more. I also realized if I wanted to meet my original expectations, I had to look elsewhere.
If people take away anything from these long ENWorld threads, it should be these two things.

1) TTRPG gamers have wildly disparate, and often mutually contradictory, preferences.
2) If you're the person at the table with a wider knowledge of gaming styles, you might need to be the person to adapt to the game, and not vice-versa. If you really can't adapt, you should probably not play.
 

Ok, but there’s also a pretty big difference between how those stories are authored.

There’s pretty massive differences between D&D and Brindlewood Bay and Fiasco despite all of them being “story creation”.
I don't personally care how they are authored, all that matters is how the players feel about playing them. If the game/story was fun for them as they were playing and then at the end of it, then how the stuff got written or figured out behind the screen doesn't matter a lick.
 

Pacing and tension are functions of plot. And the fact that an author might not have an outlined a plot before writing doesn't change the impact of the plot as a reader.
There are all kinds of things you can do to influence pacing and tension during a session without having a plot. I routinely use all of them. If I know, as a GM, that there's a vampire near the PCs, for example, then I can drop all kinds of hints, foreshadowing and other things to ratchet up the tension, and draw out the session so that the encounter, when it happens, is appropriate dramatic.

Sure, the PCs could say screw it; I don't want to fight a vampire! and leave, in which case my effort came to naught, but again, that's the risk that you take if you value player agency. Mostly, they don't do that, IME. But that doesn't have anything to do with plot at all.

My thesis is that a pre-published adventure can either tell a story (to be "like a novel or movie"), or it can set up the pieces to allow the players to construct their own story. To me, you appeared to be asserting that this isn't a binary, and that adventures can do both. I'm simply confused as to what aspects of "like a novel" are preserved if "plotted" is removed.

In addition to what I said above, but not meant to be comprehensive:
  • interesting characters with quirks, personality and motivations
  • interesting villains with plots in place that they're executing, regardless of what the PCs are or aren't doing, which have a noticeable impact on the setting around them, especially if they don't take steps to try and thwart them.
  • premises that are more interesting than "there's some rooms over here. There might be stuff in them."
  • opportunities to develop relationships between characters (PC on PC, PC on NPC, etc.) that have some depth and interesting meaning. I don't mean by fiat; "my sister is in my backstory" but because of interactions that happen in game
  • intrigue and skullduggery happening below the surface. If PCs ignore the clues, then they end up with a much more straightforward game, and don't even recognize the machinations of movers and shakers around them, but if they do, then suddenly the whole thing starts to resemble The Godfather.
Not a single one of those requires plotting, and yet it creates an experience that is much more like a novel or ongoing serial TV show, or something like that than the "default" way of playing the game as its presented. Again, it's not exactly like a novel, because that would require plotting and railroading to accomplish. But in my experience, trad players don't actually want those things. They want to have an immersive experience that keeps them entertained by utilizing skills borrowed from storytelling mediums to give them a much more entertaining experience, but one in which they can actively interact and influence what's going on, and they feel like they have meaningful agency at all times.
 

Are you not following what people mean when you say these things, or are you just taking exception to the idea that the words aren't being used "correctly?" My wife will tell me that I sometimes (more in that past) had a tendency to compulsively correct little nitpicky and pedantic details rather than just go with it. I had to stop doing that when the urge struck me because it's throwing a heavy, wet blanket over any and all social interactions. Just go with it, dude. If you understand what people mean when they say things, then react to the content of what they're saying, not the semantics of their words. If you don't understand, ask them. If you wouldn't use those words that way, just accept it for purposes of the discussion instead of trying to force everyone to accept your definition. Otherwise, you are the reason why these discussions never actually happen and get bogged down in arguing semantics. Discussion only happens when you get past that. If you understand what someone means, engage with that instead of how they say it.

I literally not was sure what people meant by "linear." Now as it seems that they do not mean linear by "linear" I better understand why people think that "linear" adventures ae different thing than railroading! But yeah, it is a terrible word choice that is bound to lead to confusion, so on those grounds I certainly object it!
 

I literally not was sure what people meant by "linear." Now as it seems that they do not mean linear by "linear" I better understand why people think that "linear" adventures ae different thing than railroading! But yeah, it is a terrible word choice that is bound to lead to confusion, so on those grounds I certainly object it!
Stop objecting. You're not the correctness police. That's why discussions fail to get off the ground. What do you want to accomplish here? Bully everyone into writing at a technical manual level, or actually have discussions about the content? The first is what you're kind of inadvertently doing, and it's never going to work because most definitions have secondary elements and nuance to them that you're ignoring anyway (and because people don't care and will ignore your attempts here), and the second isn't enabled by focusing on semantics.
 

Remove ads

Top