D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[kermit4karate]

Not by you. You've repeatedly failed to address any of the substance of the post you are supposedly responding to.



Ok let's jump back and I'll repeat myself.



Mostly agreed. "Blocking" is a very general term here and I don't want it understood as only "saying "no"". A GM can railroad for example by making all the choices he prefers easy and all the choices he doesn't prefer hard or boring. For example, "Yes, but nothing happens" is a great way to railroad. If the GM says "Yes" to everything, but only those things he thinks are good for the game have meaningful consequences and in particular "open doors" or "find breadcrumbs" or "reveal hooks" to further play, then the GM has railroaded just as effective as if they said "no" to everything that they didn't want to have happen. Reward what you like and don't reward what you don't like. We agree that is railroading - "blocking" in the most general sense of the term.



I didn't say everything is railroading. I said all hand waves (of which time skips are the one most under discussion) are railroading techniques.

To understand why I would say a counter-intuitive thing like that about a common RPG technique you have to dig into the weeds a bit. Hand waves or time skips are processes of play where you don't play out the scene according to the normal procedures of play, you just use GM fiat to declare that something has happened and we are now in the state in the fiction, usually one significantly removed from the current state in time or space. Time skips in particular are hand waves of this sort by definition moving the fictional state forward in time by a considerable degree with "nothing happening" that is meaningful in the meantime.

Now everything here depends on having a traditional GM with traditional GM authority. That is to say that "railroading" can only happen when there is tension between the secret keepers agency and the player's agency. And my assumption is that all participants have conscious and subconscious desires for how things play out, if only because they want to enjoy the session (or ideally want the other participants to enjoy the session).

So GMs are always biased regarding player decisions. Being secret keepers they have some notions about how well some course of action is likely to work out, some bias about how much fun it will be (for themselves and the group), and some stake in an a proposed action because of how much stress or effort it is on their part to respond to it (by inventing things, making judgment calls, etc.)

Now the players purpose that they want to go from A -> B (a desirable location that will advance the fun) or from A -> C (a location I feel poorly about because I don't think it will be fun), and now the GM has two choices about how to play this out. They can time skip it or they can play it out according to the usual rules that would govern travel, describing the events in greater detail and granularity and maybe having meaningful encounters on the way.

If the desirability of the location determines whether you choose to time skip or not even subconsciously, then we have a situation that is in fact we both agree was railroading: "blocking player action declarations or their desired effects because they would take the game off the GM's preferred path". "I don't want to play this out" or "I do want to play this out" is a very powerful tool. You can railroad either by "Ok, fine, you make it to Canterbury in three days. There is nothing to do here. It's an empty room." (minimizing the time the players waste on this "wrong" action). Or you can railroad by, "You go another mile down the road and you are attacked by another patrol of the draconian army. This one looks even stronger than before. Roll for initiative." Of course, in practice the force used here is going to be less obvious but it's there none the less even when not exaggerated for subtly. Likewise, time skips are often GM initiated. The GM proposes to the players, "Hey, do you want to skip over this?" like a pusher offering a free sample. Don't try to tell me that when a GM proposes a time skip isn't influenced by his feelings about the course of action. IF the process of play is influenced by GM desires to get what he wants, then we have railroading behavior - by your own definition.

And can occur when you don't intend it. For example, my players know to a certain extent that they are on "the right path" when they can tell I'm reading from my notes and not merely extemporizing. They can't always tell that, because I often paraphrase notes, and I can improvise pretty well, but they can tell fairly often. Am I subconsciously (and sometimes consciously!) more eager to offer time skips when I think the result gets the story and the action back on track? Probably or certainly so.

@Celebrim IMO, the length of your replies is what's undermining the veracity of your opinions.

No, that is not an attack. Others are doing it too. It's just crystal clear to me that folks are latching on to your context and missing your points.

Where you made solid points most people would agree with, you followed them up with too much context. Many here will pick out one sentence fragment from a 2,000-word essay to latch onto if they disagree with it, and then the entire essay goes out the window.

Promise, trying to help here. Really. The lengthy comments people on this forum tend to make (I'm also guilty of it!) when others don't immediately agree with them actually feel like being railroaded -- more than the RPG railroading we're discussing.

 

[Celebrim]

But only because you do not apply your own logic coherently. It lead so that.

No, because I can give you counter examples.

If you have a consistent procedure of play that isn't influenced by the GMs judgment where the GM adheres to the procedure of play in such a way that he is forced to accept the outcome, then that's not railroading. For example, if our tables always rolls to hit rolls in the open (or the GM never fudges even if tempted) to determine whether or not the monster is hit, then there is no railroading in that process of play. The GM has taken their own judgment out of it as much as possible. And if the modifiers to that roll are well known and established and transparent even when circumstantial, then again the GM has taken their own judgment out of its as much as possible. And the GM writes down the AC of the monster before the combat and adheres to it, again, that's not railroading. It's only railroading if the process of play is influenced or influenceable by what is happening in the meta - that is whether or not the GM thinks that misses or hits would be good for the drama at the moment.

And in a game like D&D, the GM makes judgement and decisions that affect the content of the game and how the players perceive said content all the time. Like literally apart purely mechanical things that could be automated that is what GMing is! And your logic about time skips apply to all of this, ergo, everything is railroading.

Ok, so if you exclude everything where the GM has an unbiased and documentable process of play, then I do agree everything is railroading. If we dispense with having rules and if we improvise all content on the fly and we rely solely on GM fiat, then yes, it's all aboard the choo choo all the time. But in a game like D&D, that's almost never done.

But again, this is not about time skips existing. Like this example shows, the GM can block by not timeskipping! And again, the railroading is by very intentionally and obviously blocking, which can be done in many different ways. It still does not follow that your ludicrous claim about all time skips being railroading is even remotely true, any more than all forms of GM narration or obstacle setting being railroading just because they could be used to block.

Your statement here would only be true if the GM could hypothetically remove their bias from the decision making process (leaving aside whether that is a good thing) and act as a perfectly unbiased arbiter. Someone early mentioned the minimum amount of railroading in Ironsworn is zero, and theoretically speaking that's true since Ironsworn leaves potentially every decision point up to the die. Of course, in practice you would need to assign probabilities to outcomes in an unbiased manner (everything is a coin flip!) and this might not actually be the best thing for a story, which suggests that at some level people recognize that the Secret Keeper making his preferences happen to make the story more interesting isn't entirely a bad thing so long as he leaves some fair share of agency to the players as well.

 

[Celebrim]

@Celebrim IMO, the length of your replies is what's undermining the veracity of your opinions.;

Brevity is great. Pithiness is always something you should strive for. I'm not attacked at all if you say the obvious thing that "Your writing would be stronger if it was more pithy."

It's just that that is hard. The only thing harder than being clear when using many words is being clear when using fewer words.

No, that is not an attack. Others are doing it too. It's just crystal clear to me that folks are latching on to your context and missing your points.

Where you made solid points most people would agree with, you followed them up with too much context. Many here will pick out one sentence fragment from a 2,000-word essay to latch onto if they disagree with it, and then the entire essay goes out the window.

To be honest, I agree with you but don't put the fault on my often admittedly prolix writing style. There is nothing I can do when people want to be disagreeable and uncharitable. It's impossible to write in such a way that one can't be misconstrued. I don't mean that to sound like I think I have no responsibility for writing clearly, but I don't think that I could by being pithy enough force everyone into rational debate. And I know because I'm dealing with a term that is a very potent slur in our community, that there are going to be a lot of emotions here where people interpret what I'm doing as an attack on them. It's obvious that what some people will hear is, "Celebrim is saying I'm a bad GM." and responding to that at foremost an emotional level and not what I'm saying at any logical level.

And yes, to some extent we as humans are probably all guilty of that. But no, I don't feel attacked and I do think you are trying to help and I appreciate it. You wouldn't know, but I've said before many times here that I'm peculiar enough in my sensibilities that what feels like an attack to me is nothing that people normally think of as an attack. What I consider rude isn't obvious to most people, and what most people consider rude (when they try to be rude) usually just makes me laugh.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you have a consistent procedure of play that isn't influenced by the GMs judgment where the GM adheres to the procedure of play in such a way that he is forced to accept the outcome, then that's not railroading. For example, if our tables always rolls to hit rolls in the open (or the GM never fudges even if tempted) to determine whether or not the monster is hit, then there is no railroading in that process of play. The GM has taken their own judgment out of it as much as possible.

And that is just execution of mechanics that could be automated (and in many virtual tabletops are.) This is not really what GMing is about.

And if the modifiers to that roll are well known and established and transparent even when circumstantial, then again the GM has taken their own judgment out of its as much as possible. And the GM writes down the AC of the monster before the combat and adheres to it, again, that's not railroading. It's only railroading if the process of play is influenced or influenceable by what is happening in the meta - that is whether or not the GM thinks that misses or hits would be good for the drama at the moment.

But the GM choosing the enemies and their stats before the game also biases the outcome. So by your logic, still railroading.

Ok, so if you exclude everything where the GM has an unbiased and documentable process of play, then I do agree everything is railroading. If we dispense with having rules and if we improvise all content on the fly and we rely solely on GM fiat, then yes, it's all aboard the choo choo all the time. But in a game like D&D, that's almost never done.

Right. So anything that actually requires human decision making is railroading. And that is what GMing is. Which is absurd and non-functional definition. So it is obvious dead end.

Your statement here would only be true if the GM could hypothetically remove their bias from the decision making process (leaving aside whether that is a good thing) and act as a perfectly unbiased arbiter. Someone early mentioned the minimum amount of railroading in Ironsworn is zero, and theoretically speaking that's true since Ironsworn leaves potentially every decision point up to the die. Of course, in practice you would need to assign probabilities to outcomes in an unbiased manner (everything is a coin flip!) and this might not actually be the best thing for a story, which suggests that at some level people recognize that the Secret Keeper making his preferences happen to make the story more interesting isn't entirely a bad thing so long as he leaves some fair share of agency to the players as well.

The GM is allowed to influence the course of the game! If they would not, we would not need one! Your definition of railroading is ludicrous and useless and that's why people do not agree with you.

 

[Umbran]

I didn't say everything is railroading. I said all hand waves (of which time skips are the one most under discussion) are railroading techniques.

But, Celebrim, talking is also a railroading technique.

Calling something a "railroading technique" suggests that's its primary use. And in this case, that's not true. When you hand wave the part the players actually want, that might be railroading. When you hand wave to get to the part the players actually want, you're not railroading.

 

[Celebrim]

And that is just execution of mechanics that could be automated (and in many virtual tabletops are.) This is not really what GMing is about.

GMing is about a lot of things, but I agree with you that a lot of the things that are most important about GMing are the things that are hard to automate and which separate at TTRPG experience from a cRPG experience.

But the GM choosing the enemies and their stats before the game also biases the outcome. So by your logic, still railroading.

Potentially yes. There are a lot of railroading techniques in your prep. It's impossible to have a fully naturalistic campaign. The questions then become then like: What you are doing in your prep to leave open options other than what you prefer? Are you branching? Are you trying to adhere to some naturalistic standard you set for yourself and if you aren't then are you at least conscious of what you are doing? And maybe, am I using these railroading techniques like Obdurium walls, false choices, small world's, Schrodinger's map, and so forth excessively when I could get by without them. One standard might be if I gave my notes to another GM and he ran it for a different group, could I be reasonably sure they would have a different unexpected experience? And even that shows the tension that is going on here, in that the whole point of writing up an adventure is to produce some sort of shareable and repeatable experience at some level.

It's worthwhile to look at published modules and look for the various railroading techniques and ask, "Is this justifiable?" Does the adventure get better for it?

Right. So anything that actually requires human decision making is railroading. And that is what GMing is. Which is absurd and non-functional definition. So it is obvious dead end.

Only if you are dead set on having the qualitative definition. But I realized that was actually the non-functional definition, because it just relied on "I don't railroad but that other guy, he goes too far."

The GM is allowed to influence the course of the game! If they would not, we would not need one! Your definition of railroading is ludicrous and useless and that's why people do not agree with you.

Yes, the GM is allowed to influence the course of the game. Think about the implications of that statement. How can you possibly influence the course of the game and not think that you are impacting player agency? The question is, in impacting the course of the game, are you leaving enough agency behind for the players to also meaningfully impact the course of the game. People start yelling railroad when they think that you are impacting the course of the game too much, but this notion where people say, "Oh, you can't have predefined myth in a game because that would too much impact the course of the game and that would be railroading." or "You can't say "no" in a game because that would too much impact the course of the game and that would be railroading" or "You cant' have a linear dungeon because that's just a disguised railroad" that we have heard in many different variations when people argue the specifics of what is railroading is the thing I consider ludicrous and unprofitable.

Of course, my definition of railroading also makes it harder to insult other people or feel smugly superior, so it does have its limitations.

 

[Celebrim]

But, Celebrim, talking is also a railroading technique.

I mean, OK, I'll bite. What do you mean by that? I can think of some specific ways of talking like metagame direction, "Are you sure you want to do that?" which is railroading, but what do you mean?

Calling something a "railroading technique" suggests that's its primary use.

Yes.

And in this case, that's not true. When you hand wave the part the players actually want, that might be railroading. When you hand wave to get to the part the players actually want, you're not railroading.

Why not? I've already given examples of how it could be. I mean the goal of most railroading is to get the players to willingly and maybe even unknowingly board the train to the destination you want. So if I want them to go to Funtown and they say, "Hey lets go to Funtown" and I decide to handwave away anything that might possibly get them from not going to Funtown,was I railroading or not? Like no one above the maturity level of a 14-year-old actually railroads people by saying, "No you can't do that." So why if I put up a big sign that says, "All the fun is in Funtown!" (or maybe more deviously "DON'T GO TO FUNTOWN!" depending on what I know about my players mentality) and when the players show interest, I holler, "All board to Funtown!", how is not railroading? If that happens enough, and my goal is to conduct a railroad, I'm succeeding. But if there is like lots of details and naturalistic events between here and Funtown, you know the players might well decide, "No, I want to investigate this other thing. That's more interesting." And then if you are a railroad conductor you get sad and start improvising a new train to Funtown.

UPDATE: There is a Knight of the Dinner Table sequence that is about this where BA is using a handwave to get to the adventure because playing out the journey always results in his group finding and forcing some thing he hasn't prepared for on him, and then when after they have started on the journey he tries to handwave them to their destination they go into revolt because they think they are being railroaded - and in this case they actually were. (BA was also using Obdurium Walls to make sure they couldn't get off the train, but the group actually derails the handwave precisely because they get fascinated by the Obdurium of the walls and think it must be important.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

GMing is about a lot of things, but I agree with you that a lot of the things that are most important about GMing are the things that are hard to automate and which separate at TTRPG experience from a cRPG experience.

And those are things that by your logic are always railroading. Ergo, GMing is railroading.

Yes, the GM is allowed to influence the course of the game. Think about the implications of that statement. How can you possibly influence the course of the game and not think that you are impacting player agency?

It is cooperative activity. All the participants influence the content and course of the game. That the GM or other players influence these things too does not mean your agency has been violated.

Of course, my definition of railroading also makes it harder to insult other people or feel smugly superior, so it does have its limitations.

It is not about that. I already said sometimes railroading can be beneficial. It is just that your definition is blatantly absurd.

In any case, this is going nowhere.

 

[Celebrim]

And those are things that by your logic are always railroading. Ergo, GMing is railroading.

Or maybe a big part of GMing is managing your own power to railroad. Or at least, that's one of the hats you are wearing.

It is cooperative activity. All the participants influence the content and course of the game. That the GM or other players influence these things too does not mean your agency has been violated.

So everyone can get what they want all the time? What a wonderful world in which you live in!

It is not about that. I already said sometimes railroading can be beneficial. It is just that your definition is blatantly absurd.

You've spent a lot of time saying that, but not much time demonstrating it. For example, "sometimes railroading can be beneficial" doesn't logically provide any evidence for my definition being "blatantly absurd". In fact, if "sometimes railroading can be beneficial" then my definition can't possibly be "blatantly absurd" even if it were wrong.

In any case, this is going nowhere.

Agreed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or maybe a big part of GMing is managing your own power to railroad. Or at least, that's one of the hats you are wearing.

But of course if everything is railroading there is nothing to manage, as you literally cannot avoid it!

So everyone can get what they want all the time? What a wonderful world in which you live in!

This is not what agency in a game means. I want to win in chess. But because I'm bad at it, I lose. But I did have agency. Now if I would just declare that I win in chess, I really would have no agency to play it.

You've spent a lot of time saying that, but not much time demonstrating it.

I have demonstrated that your definition basically equates GMing with railroading, which self evidently is absurd.

For example, "sometimes railroading can be beneficial" doesn't logically provide any evidence for my definition being "blatantly absurd". In fact, if "sometimes railroading can be beneficial" then my definition can't possibly be "blatantly absurd" even if it were wrong.

My statement about possible benefits about railroading have nothing to do with your argument, apart the part of it where you imagined my motivation for opposing it being my desire to virtue signal by saying that I do not railroad. I do sometimes.

Agreed.

Agree to disagree then? You of course are free to use your definition, but I won't expect it to gain much traction.