D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Maxperson]

They in fact do. If they don't then your definition actually has some extra personal caveats that you are hiding, which is probable, which means you are the one with a private and personal definition. But feel free to explain why my definitions don't meet the stated definition.

It's impossible. Clearly you don't understand the generally accepted definition railroading if you think your examples fit it. They don't, because your examples still involve the players having the ability to choose options that the DM didn't want them to take.

Edit: Time skips also fail utterly to meet my definition since they inherently remove 0 agency from the players. The players can always interrupt them to do something else, unless the DM adds railroading to them.

LOL. Seriously, metagame direction like that were you influence the players choice is a really powerful railroading technique. You are manipulating the player's decision making process. I can't understand why you don't see asking that question is anything but a GM attempt to control the player's action because he doesn't want the player to do that. And sure, the player can say "Yes, I do.", but like the second or third time a player says, "Yes, I do." and terrible horrible things happen to the player character, they are going to take the hint.

First, influence =/= removal/negation of all player choice, so it fails to meet the definition right there. Second, you have failed to prove that it's even influence.

In my game I ask, "Are you sure you want to do that?" for times where it's a bad idea, times where it's a good idea, and times where it's neutral. That way my question doesn't influence them to go in a particular direction, but instead just prompt them to think about it again before making a decision.

As a result, sometimes they change their mind and sometimes they don't, but it's not because I influenced the direction. If I only asked that question when their decision was a bad one, or only asked it when it was a good one, then it would influence their direction, because they would know what I thought of their choice and would respond based on what I thought.

The thing is your definition of railroading is just confined to DMs doing it crudely and ineffectively.

That's simply untrue.

First, crudely and obvious is probably what you really meant, since railroading by definition can't be ineffective. They players always end up where the DM wants, which is effective.

Second, whether it's used in a crude, blunt force manner, or in a very subtle and unseen manner, the amount of force used is the same. It's total. The players will end up where you want them regardless of what they wanted or chose to do.

 

[Maxperson]

When I got on the T to go to work this morning, that was a choice on my part. I could have driven into the city instead. I could even have gotten my employer to pay for my parking, no questions asked. Or, I could have ridden my bicycle, or walked. I chose the train.

The main skew to the depiction of railroading as a technique comes from the implicit assumptions that the player will always want to choose absolute personal freedom, and cannot possibly also want to go where the train goes.

That's the difference between linear and railroad in RPGs, though.

In a linear game, the players choose to go from A to B to C to D. They also have the option, if they want, to when they get to B decide that the entire line isn't what they want, and to get off the line and go somewhere else.

You chose to get on the T instead of biking or walking.

In a railroad game, the player are forced by the DM to go from A to B to C to D, and they have no ability to get off and do something else. All agency in regard to their destination is removed from them by the DM.

It would be like your boss telling you that you will be fired if you don't take the T and walk/bike to work. You can choose to lose your job, just like the railroaded players can quit the game, but if you want to work there, you're going to take the T no matter what else you may have chosen for that morning.

 

[bloodtide]

. A railroad is enforced linearity when the players did not sign up for it. It's that simple.

The problem with this vague definition is unless the game is a random sandbox of randomness or all the players are both dming the game and playing the game, you will get things "players did not sign up for" all the time.

"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."

Humm....so a DM can do anything as long as it is something the players "would accept", even if they don't know about it? Guess that is part of having good players that can "accept things".

If I, as GM, were running an FR sandbox campaign out of Waterdeep and the players said "We want to go destroy Thay!",

I'd make it clear the game will be "Unrated Adult" and then run the most grit filled, dark, and evil game beyond most peoples imagination. I'm a big fan of Thay....

Drow too. One of my more Infamous games was a group that really wanted a "beyond dark" Slaves of the Drow game. And they came right to me, as no other DM would do it. And I gave them what they asked for...and they loved it....or loved to hate it.

In a railroad game, the player are forced by the DM to go from A to B to C to D, and they have no ability to get off and do something else. All agency in regard to their destination is removed from them by the DM.

This is still a bit vague.

The PCs can get off the railroad, but only for minor things. The wacky thing where the PCs do 2/3rds of an adventure and then say something loony like "weeeee, lets travel 1000 miles away and become pirates for no reason", is not allowed in a Railroaded game.

 

[Campbell]

I do not think railroading is very useful to discuss because we are often avoiding where the root of the issue is. Complaints about railroading usually come down to issues with blocking or issues with story advocacy (making decisions based on how you want fictional events to play out). Those of us who do not have issues with blocking in a principled way but do not want story advocacy from players or GMs often get embroiled arguments about blocking and having approaches that are completely counter to how approach play conflated with how we approach play.

 

[kermit4karate]

Regarding the never-ending railroad debate, I've said that I plan my adventures.

I plan key areas and encounters.

I've also said that I fudge select dice rolls.

I've also said that I tweak some encounters to make them easier or more difficult, modify my dungeons on the fly to add/remove traps, secret areas, add/remove encounters, manifest helper NPCs when needed to keep the story moving -- full-on DM magic like that bald little DM gnome from the '80s cartoon.

Not only am I not ashamed about it; I am proud of how I run adventures because my players love our games. They trust and know that whatever adjustments I make are in service to the game.

I don't solicit their approval before I fudge a roll, and I don't get their sign-off before I replace that spike trap at the bottom of the ravine with a cooling river because I want a player to survive the day. They trust my judgment because they love the experience.

The relationship between a DM and the players is a sacred bond. If they trust the DM's motives, they don't need or care about having a "right of refusal" over individual decisions.

The reason I can get behind this definition of railroading by @EzekielRaiden is because it allows me to keep DM'ing the way I have for 40 years, while clearly describing a type of gameplay my players and I would not like.

"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."

 

[Celebrim]

It's impossible. Clearly you don't understand the generally accepted definition railroading if you think your examples fit it.

Well, one of us doesn't.

They don't, because your examples still involve the players having the ability to choose options that the DM didn't want them to take.

So? Even if we accept your imperfect understanding, if the players end up where I wanted them to be the fact that theoretically they had some other choice is irrelevant. I was still successful at forcing them to be where I wanted them to be and invalidating their agency. In fact, one of the most common railroading techniques is False Choice where in theory the players have multiple things they can choose to do, but by making all the choices but the one I want highly undesirable, I'm all but guaranteeing the players will do what I want them to do. As a crude example, I might have a powerful Monoarch or Archmage show up and tell the players, "You can either do what I tell you to do, or you can die. Your choice." The fact that in theory the players could choose death or to fight Eliminister or whatever doesn't mean I didn't railroad the players to get them where I wanted them to go.

Likewise, the fact that some keyhole exists to squirm through to get off the rails and in theory the players could have chosen to go through the keyhole doesn't mean that they weren't railroaded. The Obdurium Walls that keep the players on the rails don't have to be literally invulnerable to any attempt to breach them. They just have to be practically invulnerable. If I tell a player, "Sure you can try." but I'm ruling they need a natural 20 (or better) to do it, then I've just told them "No" with some extra steps. You don't have to make it impossible to get off the rails. You just have to make it difficult and undesirable to get off the rails, and if you are truly devious you have a plan B to get them back on the rails if they do manage to get off, such as "Where ever they go, the encounter follows them."

The point is that one doesn't have to remove all agency from a player in order to force them to where you want them to be. In fact you can generously give them all the agency in the world so long as in the end you get what you want. Which is why that if you are good at this, you can run a game where it felt like to the player they had all the choices in the world and could do anything they wanted and still was totally in control of the GM the whole time. This is why @EzekielRaiden has to put his caveat about retroactively realizing that you were railroaded and withdrawing consent means you were railroaded.

I don't have to use perfect and absolute force to steer the players where I want them to go.

But then the obvious question should be, well, how much force can I use? Like if making an option require a natural 20 because I don't want it to happen is bad, would it be OK if I only required a natural 15 or higher?

Edit: Time skips also fail utterly to meet my definition since they inherently remove 0 agency from the players. The players can always interrupt them to do something else, unless the DM adds railroading to them.

Well, except they probably won't unless you've given them reason to suspect Schrodinger's Map or you used a particularly inelegant sort of chute to drop them where you wanted them. Because time skips are "normal" and "desirable" (and at a micro scale common), players aren't generally going to question them. But more to the point, with a time skip you are pretty much always trading agency for pacing. That might be the right choice for your game; I'm not judging how anyone plays, but a time skip does take away choices and information from the player. And it should always be in a GMs mind to consider just how much agency you are potentially taking away with a time skip.

First, influence =/= removal/negation of all player choice, so it fails to meet the definition right there.

How much influence is necessary before we can agree that is the removal/negation of all player choice? Do we adopt an outcome based definition like "If the players ended up where GM wanted them then it was sufficient"? Because I think everyone is going to agree that if I make the hurdles high enough, it doesn't matter if theoretically if I didn't completely negate player choice if I made the chance of them implementing a plan for getting off the rails like 0.1%. So where is the line? Hint: There is no line. There are only tradeoffs and very conscious attempts to control for your own bias about what you want to see happen.

In my game I ask, "Are you sure you want to do that?" for times where it's a bad idea, times where it's a good idea, and times where it's neutral. That way my question doesn't influence them to go in a particular direction, but instead just prompt them to think about it again before making a decision.

Why? Why even say it then?

As a result, sometimes they change their mind and sometimes they don't, but it's not because I influenced the direction.

You influenced them by asking the question! It seems obvious to me. How can you know the question didn't change their proposition?

First, crudely and obvious is probably what you really meant, since railroading by definition can't be ineffective. They players always end up where the DM wants, which is effective.

So does this force you to agree that if my influencing is effective it is also railroading? Think of it as like a craps game with loaded dice. The fact that any one throw could potentially be anything doesn't change the fact that in the long term I am very likely now to get what I want. I mean even if I'm the house and the game is craps with unrigged dice (and some modern RPGs feel like that to me) then even if occasionally the players can get what they want, in the long run I still get what I want. One doesn't have to leave zero wiggle room in order to railroad someone. All they need to do is ensure in the long run that the player ends up where they want.

Second, whether it's used in a crude, blunt force manner, or in a very subtle and unseen manner, the amount of force used is the same. It's total. The players will end up where you want them regardless of what they wanted or chose to do.

One doesn't need to use total force to steer the players where you want them to be. You just have to put your thumb on the wheel.

 

[kermit4karate]

Well, one of us doesn't.



So? Even if we accept your imperfect understanding, if the players end up where I wanted them to be the fact that theoretically they had some other choice is irrelevant. I was still successful at forcing them to be where I wanted them to be and invalidating their agency. In fact, one of the most common railroading techniques is False Choice where in theory the players have multiple things they can choose to do, but by making all the choices but the one I want highly undesirable, I'm all but guaranteeing the players will do what I want them to do. As a crude example, I might have a powerful Monoarch or Archmage show up and tell the players, "You can either do what I tell you to do, or you can die. Your choice." The fact that in theory the players could choose death or to fight Eliminister or whatever doesn't mean I didn't railroad the players to get them where I wanted them to go.

Likewise, the fact that some keyhole exists to squirm through to get off the rails and in theory the players could have chosen to go through the keyhole doesn't mean that they weren't railroaded. The Obdurium Walls that keep the players on the rails don't have to be literally invulnerable to any attempt to breach them. They just have to be practically invulnerable. If I tell a player, "Sure you can try." but I'm ruling they need a natural 20 (or better) to do it, then I've just told them "No" with some extra steps. You don't have to make it impossible to get off the rails. You just have to make it difficult and undesirable to get off the rails, and if you are truly devious you have a plan B to get them back on the rails if they do manage to get off, such as "Where ever they go, the encounter follows them."

The point is that one doesn't have to remove all agency from a player in order to force them to where you want them to be. In fact you can generously give them all the agency in the world so long as in the end you get what you want. Which is why that if you are good at this, you can run a game where it felt like to the player they had all the choices in the world and could do anything they wanted and still was totally in control of the GM the whole time. This is why @EzekielRaiden has to put his caveat about retroactively realizing that you were railroaded and withdrawing consent means you were railroaded.

I don't have to use perfect and absolute force to steer the players where I want them to go.

But then the obvious question should be, well, how much force can I use? Like if making an option require a natural 20 because I don't want it to happen is bad, would it be OK if I only required a natural 15 or higher?



Well, except they probably won't unless you've given them reason to suspect Schrodinger's Map or you used a particularly inelegant sort of chute to drop them where you wanted them. Because time skips are "normal" and "desirable" (and at a micro scale common), players aren't generally going to question them. But more to the point, with a time skip you are pretty much always trading agency for pacing. That might be the right choice for your game; I'm not judging how anyone plays, but a time skip does take away choices and information from the player. And it should always be in a GMs mind to consider just how much agency you are potentially taking away with a time skip.



How much influence is necessary before we can agree that is the removal/negation of all player choice? Do we adopt an outcome based definition like "If the players ended up where GM wanted them then it was sufficient"? Because I think everyone is going to agree that if I make the hurdles high enough, it doesn't matter if theoretically if I didn't completely negate player choice if I made the chance of them implementing a plan for getting off the rails like 0.1%. So where is the line? Hint: There is no line. There are only tradeoffs and very conscious attempts to control for your own bias about what you want to see happen.



Why? Why even say it then?



You influenced them by asking the question! It seems obvious to me. How can you know the question didn't change their proposition?



So does this force you to agree that if my influencing is effective it is also railroading? Think of it as like a craps game with loaded dice. The fact that any one throw could potentially be anything doesn't change the fact that in the long term I am very likely now to get what I want. I mean even if I'm the house and the game is craps with unrigged dice (and some modern RPGs feel like that to me) then even if occasionally the players can get what they want, in the long run I still get what I want. One doesn't have to leave zero wiggle room in order to railroad someone. All they need to do is ensure in the long run that the player ends up where they want.



One doesn't need to use total force to steer the players where they want them to be. You just have to put your thumb on the wheel.

I don't understand half of what you said, and before you say something about my capacity for understanding, I architect multibillion-dollar enterprise networks for a living. If the information were clearly presented, I swear to you, I would understand it.

I know I've suggested it already, but if you truly hope to be heard and understood, if not agreed with, please try to summarize your premise in a sentence or two.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't understand half of what you said, and before you say something about my capacity for understanding, I architect multibillion-dollar enterprise networks for a living. If the information were clearly presented, I swear to you, I would understand it.

I know I've suggested it already, but if you truly hope to be heard and understood, if not agreed with, please try to summarize your premise in a sentence or two.

For the post you don't understand? The premise is pretty simple, and it's in the post.

"If the players end up where I wanted them to be the fact that theoretically they had some other choice is irrelevant...One doesn't need to use total force to steer the players where you want them to be. You just have to put your thumb on the wheel."

The rest is an essay in a roughly Ciceronian manner. I tell you what I am going to set out to prove. Then I provide supporting arguments. And then I conclude by telling you what I said.

I could probably arrange everything into five paragraphs or so if that would help. What part of the premise do I need to clarify?

 

[nevin]

Some people like linear adventures.

Not all linear adventures are railroads.


The first group of people would be people who want a linear adventure and are not even attempting to exert their own choices, yes.


The bolded part makes all the difference, imagine that.


Except that that's not what I'm talking about, and never have been.

You may have noticed, for example, my question about coercion. Which, I guess, I now need to say "coercive or manipulative". I don't personally see much difference between those things, but others have articulated one, so I'm expanding it to both.

Is railroading always coercive or manipulative? I argue 100% yes.

Are linear adventures always coercive or manipulative? Trivally no.

That's the difference here. You want "railroad" to be expanded to cover all possible linear adventures no matter what. I disagree with that choice and think it is profoundly unhelpful.


I disagree. Because, again, this is a question of whether that is being done in a coercive or manipulative way.

If the GM forces their players to consistently do this no matter what the players want, then yes, that would be a problem. If it is done with full player buy-in, clearly, there's no problem.

Railroading is enforced somehow; that the players might coincidentally not bump into it is irrelevant. Linearity, on the other hand, is simply a property of an adventure; it may be railroading or not railroading. Linear adventures have no strong negative connotations nor positive ones. (In fact, most prewritten adventures are more linear than not!) And, as I've previously argued (possibly in this thread?), we can even have a term for virtuous, well-constructed linear adventures: rollercoaster. You can't choose anything about how a coaster works, and yet people can find them quite thrilling if they're constructed well. But the people who find it thrillilng are, more or less always, people who knowingly sought out that experience. Hence the thread remains in common: well-executed with buy-in, it's great; unknown execution with unknown buy-in, it's neutral; with flawed execution and (especially) lacking buy-in, it's bad.

This seems a quite effective description. It's not like having good, bad, and neutral words for the same overall concept is somehow weird or wrong. "Fragrant", for example, generally means a good smell, ignoring things like sarcastic usage. "Smell" is generally neutral but may have negative connotations (e.g. "smelly" is usually bad). "Stink" is clearly negative, again ignoring sarcastic/ironic usage. Should we, then, start arguing that things that "stink" actually smell good? That it's unfair to say that "stink" is bad because some people think sweat stinks and others enjoy it? Are we really going to start eliminating words with clear, useful, critical applicability, when other neutral words already exist, solely because some people get upset about the term being used pejoratively?

I guess we will just have to disagree. I ve always interpreted railroading as the tracks only go one way that can be coercive or no Coercive. Willing or unwilling. Else you say or I say is going to move this needle so I'm done.

 

[nevin]

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.

linear means A then B then C. Sounds a lot like the old railroad track.