What best describes railroading as you understand it?

[Quasqueton]

In a single game, if Player A says, "The DM is railroading" and Player B says, "The DM is not railroading," what happens? Does the DM's head explode? Can Player C get the chunks of brain out of his hair? Will Player D vomit from the grossness?

Quasqueton

 

[happyelf]

Well, considering you cannot even use your own definition without contradicting yourself, I am not all that surprised that I have trouble understanding you.

Well, consdering this is completly untrue I am not at all suprised to see you posting it, ebcause so far you've made no attemtp to read what i've been posting.

But, in the interests of fairness. What is the cut off point for railroading? Player happiness? Right. Every DM should be held hostage to the whims of his players for fear of railroading.

Oh, of course, you're right, rather than that, every player should be held hostage by their GM- lied to, mislead about the nature of the game, and then shouted down if they dare to mention they're not having fun. That way, they can sink hours of their life, week after week, into a game that isn't even suited to them.

OR, we can look at reality. I'm not saying that the GM should be held hostage, i've said that several times, but of course you'd obviously ignore that.

I'm simply pointing out the undeniable, factual reality that the player's enjoyment is one of the key factors in wether the game will continue, for them at least. And the grups, collectivly, does 'hold the game hsotage', because if the game sucks enough, they may (and should) abadon it.

Some of us wierdos even think that as GMs, player enjoyment should be our primary goal, something they are entitled to, but I can understand that you have different priorities.

Each of Quas's questions came complete with a phrase describing one or more player reactions. Far from being ignored, it is this part of your definition that I find objection to. So, please answer those questions in this thread or the other. Those answers would be useful in determining if we are misreading your position or not.
RC

I've got no interest in giving you guys more credit than you deserve. You're both oppose my definition and you ahve no interest in understandin or accepting it. The 'queestions' or examples noted have all been answered before, on the other thread, multiple times, but you continue to ignore what I say because your agenda is argument, not understanding. I'm not going to go through the time and effort to answer those questions in depth, because I know you'll just ignore the answers and go back to square one, or skim them, quote them, and try to warp them into another '''logical''' rebuttal. maybe if there was a bit more good faith involved I could put more effort in, but at this stage it's just not worth my time. No matter what I say, you'll just take it as proof that you're right, or use it as fodder for further fruitless argument.

In a single game, if Player A says, "The DM is railroading" and Player B says, "The DM is not railroading," what happens? Does the DM's head explode? Can Player C get the chunks of brain out of his hair? Will Player D vomit from the grossness?
Quasqueton

The definintion defines railroading the per-player basis, so there is no contradiction. Different players have different preferences.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, consdering this is completly untrue I am not at all suprised to see you posting it, ebcause so far you've made no attemtp to read what i've been posting.

You are apparently unable to accept that someone might understand what you are saying and still disagree with you.

I've got no interest in giving you guys more credit than you deserve. You're both oppose my definition and you ahve no interest in understandin or accepting it. The 'queestions' or examples noted have all been answered before, on the other thread, multiple times, but you continue to ignore what I say because your agenda is argument, not understanding.

No. The agenda is clearly that you throw some light on your position. On one hand, you claim that the only determinant of "railroading" is how the player feels about a given situation. On the other hand, you claim that the logical problems that arise from that definition do not. So either your definition isn't as well thought out as you think it is, or your explanation of it isn't complete.

Earlier, your reason for not answering was because there wasn't sufficient information. If your claim that player determinent is the only factor, then there is sufficient information. If there really is not sufficient information, then there is a factor in your equation that you haven't brought up (at least not in a way that it is recognizable).

Your refusal to answer questions that would either highlight those problems or the reason why those problems wouldn't exist is rather telling, IMHO.

RC

 

[happyelf]

You are apparently unable to accept that someone might understand what you are saying and still disagree with you.

I guess i'm just giving you too much credit.

The agenda is clearly that you throw some light on your position. On one hand, you claim that the only determinant of "railroading" is how the player feels about a given situation. On the other hand, you claim that the logical problems that arise from that definition do not.

There's no 'on the other hand' there, your 'logic' is not valid. There's nohting self-defeating about my position. It just doesn't mesh wiht your preconceptions.

So either your definition isn't as well thought out as you think it is, or your explanation of it isn't complete.

Or you're reaching for ways to criticise it.

Earlier, your reason for not answering was because there wasn't sufficient information. If your claim that player determinent is the only factor, then there is sufficient information. If there really is not sufficient information, then there is a factor in your equation that you haven't brought up (at least not in a way that it is recognizable).

I'ver made numerous clarifications, and nothing can disguise the fact that at it's core, your argument is about ignoring player preference as the quite enormous and important factor it is.

Your refusal to answer questions that would either highlight those problems or the reason why those problems wouldn't exist is rather telling, IMHO.
RC

Let me turn it around, how about you answer the questions, using your crtieria?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Happy Elf.. I am intrigued... and confused..

After all this bickering about what your argument is or isn't, I took a generous half hour or so searching through both threads...

The only thing I could find was an early statement in the other thread that was pretty hard-line.. any DM action that removes player choice, fx 'Charm Person', is railroading..

Could you be nice enough to either link to or restate your position? Thanks.


One thing I did notice during my review of the thread... there seemed to be a series of arguments based on the extremes of this issue that generally die off before getting to the point of agreeing that a moderate stance of both player choice and DM manipulation is required.. .with the notable exception of Buzz

Oh well.. back to what I should have been doing about half an hour ago!

Damn you RC.. your threads are always too much fun!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let me turn it around, how about you answer the questions, using your crtieria?

Sure.

Assuming that there is no house rule or weirdness in play that we are not informed about:

1- Being targeted with a hold person in a combat -- the Player is unhappy because he wants to act in the battle.

Not railroading. Hold person is part of the game. NPCs can use it, just as PCs can. While the player is temporarily forced in linear action (inaction) the DM is making legitimate use of the rules.

2- Being confronted by normal constabulary for burning and killing through the city -- the Players are unhappy because they were having fun tossing fireballs around.

Not railroading as described. However, one might well imagine that the constabulry are going to be more than a little nervous confronting the PCs. I think that this is a situation that might temp many DMs (especially relatively inexperienced DMs) into railroading (i.e., suddenly the DM changes the size and power level of the constabulry to enforce the outcome he wants, etc.), but it is not railroading itself.

3- Telling the paladin he needs to atone for torturing and raping captives -- the Player is unhappy because he doesn't want to go on a quest for the atonement.

Railroading as written. The DM is certainly allowed to say "Either atone or you will be stripped of your paladinhood", but not that the player must atone. Of course, IMC, the player's actions would already have led to the consequence of losing his paladinhood. YMMV.

4- Telling the Players, “no warforged ninjas in this campaign” -- one Player is unhappy because he really wants to play a warforged ninja.

Not railroading. Setting up a campaign is a legitimate, and often necessary, part of the DM's job.

5- Room 1 in the dungeon has one door other than the entrance, which leads to room 2 -- the Players are unhappy because they want to skip the fight in room 2 and sneak into the room 3 from a back way.

Not railroading. The players are not forced to go into room 2. Sometimes layouts are different that what you might like. No one builds a fortification with an eye toward making it easy for intruders.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I'd like to illustrate my definition of railroading with an example.

The first Third Edition game I played was a fairly long-running Planescape campaign which was, for the first two-thirds to three-quarters of its length, intensely player-driven. The DM had quite a complement of minor plotlines, organisations, and NPCs which he had created in response to the PCs' goals and backstories, and the eight (!) characters we eventually had in that game had a grand time scheming against them and each other, struggling to succeed by forming alliances with NPCs and PCs alike.

Then the DM decided that the game had to come to an end, and that the best way to do this would be to "reveal" that the PCs were destined to open a gate to an unimaginable font of power, the sort of thing that could ensure victory for one side in the Blood War or let forces from the Upper Planes crush first one side and then the other. At first, the prophecy we heard was cool - there were eight names, titles like the Unmaker, the One Who Is Three, that sort of thing, each of which could be potentially applied to more than one PC or even to certain NPCs.

The problem, of course, was that the PCs all still had goals of their own, and however interested we were in investigating or fulfilling the prophecy we were not proceeding towards the end the DM envisioned nearly fast enough to suit him. So he started railroading, turning a game which had been a PC-goal-driven sandbox experience like nothing else I've ever played into a one-track, one-way express train towards what turned out to be (in my opinion) kind of a lame, stupid conclusion and certainly nothing fit to cap off the game as it had been.

Specific examples of railroading included ignoring my character's completely reasonable belief that there was no way any of us could get anything out of opening the gate - not with the hosts of several Upper and Lower planes interested - and a disinclination, being a slightly insane alienist obsessed with getting to the Far Realm, to be involved in any of those forces' schemes as a loyal lieutenant; when this led to my character's deciding not to accompany the party for an audience with a demon prince, the DM tried to have an NPC knock my character unconscious and drag him along.

(At this point I do want to note that the game had been a player-driven sandbox prior to virtually this point, and also that it had been completely acceptable to split the party up on separate ventures prior to this point. Hell, my character and two others had entered the game by joining a "solo" side campaign one of the other PCs had gone off on after a conflict with the rest of the party!)

When I decided to quit the game over this, I'm told that my character "randomly leaped into the River Styx and lost his memory", one of the most boneheaded rationales for a PC forgetting his objections to a proposed course of action I can imagine. Eventually, some of the other players talked me into coming back to play the conclusion of the campaign, and similar hijinks ensued, involving a red dragon travelling with the party in disguise trying to stop my PC from simply walking away from the direction of the gate.

So, you know, I think that's not only a decent example of railroading, it's also a decent example of incredibly egregious railroading which completely ignored the unspoken but agreed-upon direction of the game to that point.

 

[coyote6]

For me, railroading always has a negative connotation. People who have been railroaded feel like they have been railroaded. I would offer the following necessary conditions for railroading:
1) PCs proceeding through a predetermined series of events in a predetermined order
2) PC choices negated or rules suspended in order to force the party through this predetermined path
3) PCs feeling that this GM usurpation of RAW or PC authority is unwarranted

None of these three things constitutes a sufficient condition but all, in my view, are necessary conditions.

This is the poll option I was looking for. I endorse fusangite's definition.