D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[zarionofarabel]

From this thread and from many others before it, GMs who espouse a traditional sandbox style (at least the ones I've seen discuss it on this board) almost take pride in NEVER being influenced by the players and would consider that a heavy negative to be strenuously avoided.

Well, the way I run my sandbox games it's unavoidable to be influenced by the players as they are expected to be the primary drivers of the narrative and ultimately in charge of how the story plays out. As for what situations the PCs encounter, well in essence, no, simply because I only create situations without even considering how the PCs may deal with said situation. Basically, I present a problem for the PCs to solve, and if they decide to solve it, the solution is whatever they come up with, as no problem I create has a predetermined solution.

 

[payn]

Eh, I'm not sure I understand, I think you might have gotten a little too philosophical for this old dog.

I guess if you mean I should include stealth opportunities for a player that makes a sneaky PC, then okay.

However I think that having every single GM authored narrative element needing to be perfectly tailored to the PC the only way to avoid a railroad is simply stretching the definition of railroading a little too far.

If I'm even close to grasping what you are trying to say.

It seems that equating linear games to railroads isn’t too far though?

So then all games, no matter how sandbox or linear, are in fact just cleverly disguised railroads?

It appears so depending on who you ask.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Absolutely one of my lowest priorities for D&D in general. What is actually gained by playing "smart"? (Defining "smart" here as relatively cautious play with a focus on advancing the overall "storyline".)

Well, for some people its a "win" condition. But far from all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, I was thinking more of people who show up with the apparent intention of engaging in rank schmuckery rather than people who like funny voices and rolling d20s. I guess there could be an overlap between the two at certain tables, but casual, beer & pretzels play seems benign to me.

It can be something of a problem if the situation is cooked up to require thought to work through parts of it though, because they're just going to want to bull through and that won't work well.

 

[pemerton]

From this thread and from many others before it, GMs who espouse a traditional sandbox style (at least the ones I've seen discuss it on this board) almost take pride in NEVER being influenced by the players and would consider that a heavy negative to be strenuously avoided.

Maybe - I don't speak for them, and I've not played with them and don't know anything about their RPGing other than their accounts of it.

I'm just expressing my understanding of what railroading is, and relating it to @chaochou's, which I'm close to but probably not quite identical to. I wouldn't want to play in a RPG where all the scenes and stakes are authored without me having some sort of influence: to me, that would be pretty railroad-y.

 

[pemerton]

So then all games, no matter how sandbox or linear, are in fact just cleverly disguised railroads?

No. Because all not RPGing involves the GM more-or-less unilaterally deciding on the significant elements of scenes, their stakes, and what comes next.

I guess if you mean I should include stealth opportunities for a player that makes a sneaky PC, then okay.

No, I'm meaning more than that. I'm meaning that the fiction is - in some fashion, at least to some extent - focused on ideas, themes, tropes, etc that the players bring to the table. So if the player brings a Raven Queen devotee to the table, then play is (in some sense) about being a Raven Queen devotee.

Or, if the character the player brings to the table is a young wizard mentored by a refugee from a wizardly conspiracy then the fiction will, in some sense, engage with being a wizard who has a mentor and being a wizard who is implicated in a wizardly conspiracy.

It's related to @Old Fezziwig post upthread, that

we have a railroad when we could replace some or all of the PCs in a given game with other PCs such that the story that arises out of play, as reviewed after the game has ended, is not meaningfully responsive to having different PCs. Put more simply, if we change the protagonists and the story stays the same, we have a railroad.

I think that having every single GM authored narrative element needing to be perfectly tailored to the PC the only way to avoid a railroad is simply stretching the definition of railroading a little too far.

Well, I guess it depends what you mean by "perfectly tailored". Once, when I was playing a (non-D&D) FRPG, the GM introduced a whole lot of Elves onto the "stage". This wasn't tailored to me or my PC: the GM loves Elves, and wanted to enjoy a scene with Elves in it. The Elves invited my PC to do some thing that they (as played by the GM) cared about. But I (as my PC) declined, and rather tried to persuade the Elves to help me in my goal of liberating my ancestral homeland. I failed hopelessly. But, although the scene contained an element that was introduced solely by the GM based on his own enthusiasm, the scene ended up being focused on a thing I (as my PC) cared about, with the stakes being stakes that I set.

(In line with what @chaochou posted, my PC's goal was established by me, and the scene ended up being focused on that.)

 

[zarionofarabel]

It seems that equating linear games to railroads isn’t too far though?

Only in that, as a player, I always thought that I was happy to jump on said railroad. As an old geezer, I had always heard the dichotomy of playstyles framed as railroad vs sandbox. In that a railroad is a game where the GM creates a plotline in advance for the players to follow, and the sandbox, where the GM doesn't have predetermined plotlines for the players to follow.

It turns out that I am instead a player who buys in to GM guided narrative and thus is happy to participate in a linear adventure style game.

As I said before, functionally, railroad and linear adventure games appear identical. The difference lies in whether or not the players want to go along with the predetermined plotline. If they are, it's a linear adventure, if not, then it enters a fail state and becomes a railroad instead. Just like how, functionally, sandbox and wasteland games appear identical. The difference lies in whether or not the GM provides meaningful situations for the players to actively engage. If the GM does, then it's a sandbox, if not, then it enters a fail state and becomes a wasteland instead.

At least that's where my understanding lies at this particular point based on the discussion I've experienced throughout this thread.

It appears so depending on who you ask.

Hence the whole reason for the discussion happening in this thread. As all these wonderful terms we are tossing around have no strict definitions. Honestly, it's been a great discussion for me personally, as it has made me realize a few things about my preferences in regards to how I like to participate in this hobby. If nothing else it's made me realize that I am a lazy AF participant, as no matter what side of the screen I'm on, I prefer that someone else is driving the narrative. I just want to sit back, enjoy the ride, and wait to see what the story will be once the game ends!

 

[zarionofarabel]

No, I'm meaning more than that. I'm meaning that the fiction is - in some fashion, at least to some extent - focused on ideas, themes, tropes, etc that the players bring to the table. So if the player brings a Raven Queen devotee to the table, then play is (in some sense) about being a Raven Queen devotee.

Or, if the character the player brings to the table is a young wizard mentored by a refugee from a wizardly conspiracy then the fiction will, in some sense, engage with being a wizard who has a mentor and being a wizard who is implicated in a wizardly conspiracy.

Okay. Well, I've always thought that was just the way one was supposed to GM . Like, the whole point of being a GM was to foster narrative that incorporates the players preferences as to what they want to experience out of a game. If I have a player that makes a badass combat god PC, I am assuming that they want to engage in some furious combat, to not include any combat for the player to engage in, would just be bad GMing, IMHO. Same goes for a player that creates a PC that is obsessed with discovering eldritch secrets, but then is never presented with the possibility of ever discovering said eldritch secrets, would be a failure on the GMs part to properly foster narrative that engages the players interests. I think I have always done that kind of thing as a GM, in that as I like to run player driven narrative games, the narrative more often than not revolves around the PCs personal interests, which in turn engages the players personal interests. Which when all is said and done is something that, while I feel I have always done that, I did experience in a codified way when I read the Burning Wheel TTRPG for the first time. BW does an amazing job mechanically supporting that principle as the entirety of the system's gameplay loop is centered around the PCs explicitly stated personal goals and personality traits. Frankly, I wish more systems had a razor sharp focus on a PCs personal goals as their main focus. I'm actually surprised to this day that BW's BIT system hasn't been something that I've encountered in other systems. It's such an elegant way to express a player's interests through their PCs statistics, it should be way more of "a thing" in the hobby, IMHO.

All that being said, I am still unsure as to how NOT doing that is considered railroading. As, at this moment in time, I understand railroading to be a removal of player agency. While I do understand that NOT doing that is akin to being a less good GM, how does it equate to a removal of agency? To sneak in a quote from Galaxy Quest, one of the greatest satires of all time, alluding to the scene where evil green alien guy tells the captain to explain what acting is to the friendly squid alien leader...

Explain it to him as if he were a child!

Well, I guess it depends what you mean by "perfectly tailored". Once, when I was playing a (non-D&D) FRPG, the GM introduced a whole lot of Elves onto the "stage". This wasn't tailored to me or my PC: the GM loves Elves, and wanted to enjoy a scene with Elves in it. The Elves invited my PC to do some thing that they (as played by the GM) cared about. But I (as my PC) declined, and rather tried to persuade the Elves to help me in my goal of liberating my ancestral homeland. I failed hopelessly. But, although the scene contained an element that was introduced solely by the GM based on his own enthusiasm, the scene ended up being focused on a thing I (as my PC) cared about, with the stakes being stakes that I set.

(In line with what @chaochou posted, my PC's goal was established by me, and the scene ended up being focused on that.)

Oh well, if the whole thing just has to be about you, then I'm gonna...oh wait...I think I already do that! At least, far more often than not, anyway.