D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know the details of the Modiphius systems.

But I am pretty familiar with the Doom Pool in Marvel Heroic RP. One thing it does is to serve the same function as player-side plot points: to manipulate resolution dice pools. But it can also be used to affect various aspects of a scene - both framing, and to close a scene even if the players haven't finished in it.

In D&D, the rules allow a GM to close a scene whenever and however they wish, and provide relatively little guidance on how to this. In comparison, the MHRP rules are more limiting of the GM's authority.

Further, there is a critical difference between GM points being used, and the techniques (or lack thereof...) in D&D.

That is, the manipulation is done openly. You openly spend your Doom Pool on things. You openly, without any pretense or concealment, draw on GM metacurrencies to achieve a result. There is no subterfuge. There is no manipulation of players.

The rules set out what can and can't be done, and the structure makes that action visible to the players, so they can decide for themselves whether or not they approve of it. As opposed to the D&D method, where the GM gets to do whatever they want whenever they want for as long as they want all while keeping the players completely in the dark about it, so the players cannot respond--unless they find out, at which point the player needs to decide whether they still trust a GM willing to manipulate them and conceal the manipulation from them.

 

[kermit4karate]

If it is a singular isolated case, perhaps it might not be railroading--but I see it as reflecting a general pattern of pretense. The GM is pretending that they allow the players to act with meaningful freedom, but in practice, they're functionally forbidding anything that doesn't suit their preconceived, essentially fixed pathway.

Like we can see something of a progression of railroading technique, getting more refined but still producing the same results. Consider the party trying to take the south road instead of the north road:

• Flat unvarnished fiat: "You can't because I say so"
• Ad hoc invented obstacles: "You can't because...uh...the south road is blocked"
• Pretense of allowance: "You can try, but the road is so damaged, you're essentially guaranteed to fail"
• Extensive pre-written work: "You can't, because as I established six sessions ago, the south road is blocked."
• Illusionism: "You can!" [But this now just means that the north road adventure happens with a 180-degree rotation of directions]

And this, incidentally, is one of the reasons why I have such a strident opposition to illusionism. It is railroading, plain and simple, it's just highly sophisticated railroading, designed to deny the players even the possibility of objecting. That's why every single source that talks about using it, specifically goes into how the GM must never, ever allow the players to know that it's happening--otherwise it would upset those players, probably by a lot. Manipulative techniques which include such efforts to conceal that any maniuplation has occurred at all are...pretty high on my No No list.

I suggested this with @Celebrim earlier today, but I'll also try with you. Would you be willing to attempt to summarize your position on this debate over railroading in one sentence? if so and others try it too, it could help to crystallize the underlying differences among the opinions.

You know that phrase about if someone does the same thing over and over they should expect the same result? One thing none of us have tried here is brevity.

One sentence?

 

[kermit4karate]

Then let me ask simply:

Why does "railroading", this single specific word, NEED to be both positive and negative?

Why can't it just be negative, and we use the other, widely-used, widely-available, inherently neutral term "linear"?

Why do you NEED this one specific word to be positive?

I would totally be willing to do this if I believed that everyone on this thread was using the term "railroading" to describe the same thing, but they aren't.

I'd say, please describe your definition of railroading in one sentence without using the word "railroading" at all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If nothing else some of the discussion in this thread has at least given me some idea as to why certain systems include meta currency for the GM. I know Modiphius 2d20 systems do. I mean, if the GM has their own meta currency they can use to force the narrative down a certain path, even if it's against player wishes, it shouldn't really be railroading, right?!? I mean, isn't that the whole reason why a GM would need meta currency, to give them the ability to railroad, as long as they have the currency to pay. Or am I totally off on that idea?

It depends on how broadly you define it.

I'd describe it as serving the same purpose as it does for players in a system that otherwise assumes both the players and GM will, you know actually stick to the rules, but wants occasional intercessions on that for dramatic purposes.

 

[Celebrim]

So I have been thinking hard about the question of whether it's possible to have a time skip or hand wave that is not an act of railroading, and I do think that I have a scenario where it wouldn't be.

The GM accepts the intention to handwave away an event or time skip over something knowing that he was looking forward to that event and considered it important. For example, if the GM had prepared a fight to save a caravan from orc bandits and some important NPCs he wanted to introduce, and the party said, "We want to just skip over the travel.", if the GM deliberately cancelled his own plans then we could reasonably suggest we could know he wasn't acting in his own interest or out of his own bias.

I'm not sure that this is a very realistic scenario. I suspect that for the most part it never occurs to a GM to time skip over a prepared important event (that is important as he understands it) that he spent time and thought on. But if they did just throw away their plans for whatever reason, that wouldn't be a railroad.

 

[gban007]

I would totally be willing to do this if I believed that everyone on this thread was using the term "railroading" to describe the same thing, but they aren't.

I'd say, please describe your definition of railroading in one sentence without using the word "railroading" at all.

If we follow the more colloquial (?) Use of term railroaded in general language, then applied to TTRPG it is where the players are forced to follow the DMs chosen plot points / adventure, with no means to get away from this save leaving the table, and without having upfront chosen to do this.
If beforehand the players opted to follow the DMs chosen plot points/ adventure, they haven't been railroaded.
So railroading is forcing them down the path, linear has where they chosen to go down the path.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I suggested this with @Celebrim earlier today, but I'll also try with you. Would you be willing to attempt to summarize your position on this debate over railroading in one sentence? if so and others try it too, it could help to crystallize the underlying differences among the opinions.

You know that phrase about if someone does the same thing over and over they should expect the same result? One thing none of us have tried here is brevity.

One sentence?

"Railroading is the word for when a GM, through coercion or manipulation, enforces an inflexibly linear experience as part of GMing, that the players would not accept if they were aware of it, or do not accept if they are already aware of it."

Also, if I may, a secondary point I've been trying to make WRT some of the arguments here: "We should not redefine 'railroading' to be positive/neutral/context-dependent, both because we already have a neutral term ('linear'/'linearity'), and because there is no current alternative which captures the current usage."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So I have been thinking hard about the question of whether it's possible to have a time skip or hand wave that is not an act of railroading, and I do think that I have a scenario where it wouldn't be.

The GM accepts the intention to handwave away an event or time skip over something knowing that he was looking forward to that event and considered it important. For example, if the GM had prepared a fight to save a caravan from orc bandits and some important NPCs he wanted to introduce, and the party said, "We want to just skip over the travel.", if the GM deliberately cancelled his own plans then we could reasonably suggest we could know he wasn't acting in his own interest or out of his own bias.

I'm not sure that this is a very realistic scenario. I suspect that for the most part it never occurs to a GM to time skip over a prepared important event (that is important as he understands it) that he spent time and thought on. But if they did just throw away their plans for whatever reason, that wouldn't be a railroad.

Wait wait wait wait wait.

So, now it's not, even remotely, about any form of agency at all--even though that's pretty consistently what everyone else uses the term for--and is instead solely and exclusively about GM caring about the content being undertaken or skipped?

Absolutely the heck not. Like how do you even start from this as a base? What? Seriously? You're literally making it so if the GM cares about their campaign, in any way whatsoever, that automatically means EVERYTHING they do is railroading. Seriously? You've turned the term into something totally useless!

And, more to the point, I have done exactly this with my own game. Not exactly in the sense of "caravan skipping past orc bandits", but I prepared--with rather a lot of detail--a "boss fight" of sorts near the end of a druid sanctuary the players came to call the Charred Marsh Grotto (since it had been set on fire and they'd put out the fire before entering). The players, through exploiting a loophole I hadn't considered, completely demolished the monster without making a single attack roll. They just baited it into one of the traps, which (functionally) deleted it. And I absolutely let that stand, because the players earned it, fair and square. I do think it would have been more satisfying and exciting to do the fight I'd planned, but I consider it utterly unacceptable to intrude on the players' efforts in that way...so I won't do that. Ever.

And yes, I have spoken about this on this forum many, many times before, so it's not like I'm inventing this story off the cuff. This was specifically the "molten obsidian golem" fight. I'm sure if you look up the words obsidian golem on this forum, you'll find posts I've made about it.

So, by your own lights, I'm apparently a GM who specifically doesn't railroad, even with your nonsense "if the GM cares about it, then it happening is always ramming the players through a railroad" definition. Something you've claimed should be impossible.

Edit:
In fact, I can do one better, I have another example of a time where the players made a choice which hurt them in a way that pre-empted my efforts at creating an exciting and interesting encounter. In this case, they had captured a low-level gang leader (think "head of a squad of ganbangers" level--the equivalent of a local cell leader in a terrorist organization). Said gang-leader was supremely confident during questioning, which the players correctly concluded meant that he thought he would be sprung by the gang. So, the players intentionally allowed the prison break to happen on their watch, and took steps to be able to follow the ganger back to whatever place he was going to report to. Letting the little fish go in order to catch a bigger fish, which was a smart move!

They would have succeeded....except that as part of their efforts to track the guy, they trusted someone they shouldn't have, who doesn't actually know that the person he reports to has connections to the gang. As a result, the gang intentionally cut back their presence to the bare minimum necessary to not give away that they'd known about it, and the underboss had already fled, leaving an illusion of himself behind so he could see and speak, but not be touched nor followed. I had been preparing a grand heist with lots of challenges to work through before reaching the underboss, and then a big (under)boss fight to cap it off where they'd have to try to hold back enough to capture the guy alive, rather than killing him, since capturing him alive was the whole goal.

But because they made that one unfortunate mistake, nixed--losing them both the beneficial thing, and a result I personally had been more invested in and thought would be more exciting and entertaining. I didn't prevent them from making that mistake, and I didn't tell them about it until they discovered that their plans had been ruined, because they would have had no way of knowing that their trust was misplaced, the guy they've been working with has been genuinely good to them, and they couldn't possibly know that his superiors work with the gang since he himself doesn't know.

 

[gban007]

"Railroading is the word for when a GM, through coercion or manipulation, enforces an inflexibly linear experience as part of GMing, that the players would not accept if they were aware of it, or do not accept if they are already aware of it."

Also, if I may, a secondary point I've been trying to make WRT some of the arguments here: "We should not redefine 'railroading' to be positive/neutral/context-dependent, both because we already have a neutral term ('linear'/'linearity'), and because there is no current alternative which captures the current usage."

To expand on this, I also think you can have a non linear campaign and still have railroading.
Take the forgotten realms for instance (as a published setting i know well) - maybe the players want to try and get one of the characters to become a Lord of Waterdeep. Maybe they want to forge a new trading route through Anaraouch desert, or set up a smuggling route in the sword coast. Maybe they want to try and found an eleventh town in Icewind Dale, or some sort of outpost for forays in Chult. They may want to try and destroy the Zhents, or the Harpers, or the Red Wizards.
If a DM running a sandbox campaign in the Realms says no to players attempting the above, then I feel that is railroading, as forcing the players away from what they want to do to perhaps more run of the road general adventuring / dungeon exploring.

Where someone like Permerton may differ to me, is that if a DM says yes to the above, but is the one determining what is required and odds of success for each step, that Pemerton may consider that railroading still, which I dont. Yes, is different level of agency to a situation where the DM and players together determine possible steps and odds of success, but no more railroading to me, though I think either approach would work, especially if everyone has reasonable understanding of the world or access to get it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

as has been stated many times and to be clear I'm not a fan. Some people like the railroad. whether it be enter the dungeon door clear all the rooms or just do what the DM points them at. and that's ok.

Some people like to get on a railroad and not think, just act till the game is over, some people want to ride all the back roads and argue with the barmaid in the city and found an orphanage and wipe out the assasins guild or just walk jimmy home DM plans effectively meaning nothing.

those are not railroads, they're linear, the adventures where the players turn off their brain and just follow the signposts are linear, players don't choose to play a railroad because it it something that is put upon them by someone else.