What best describes railroading as you understand it?

[shilsen]

I think my head is about to explo*SPLORT! splattersplattersplattersplatter*

The bastards! They killed the Shaman!

 

[Rothe]

And I too have never properly run a game

Its all way to subjective of an issue anyway.

Perhaps I spoke too concisely...

My version of the above describes your normal gathering of gamers for a game that is not being run by a GM who has a richly detailed setting from which to work with. Instead the GM relies on published modules purchases with thier hard earned money....
In this sort of setup, the players should expect a level of railroading..after all why would the group go out to defeat the Temple of Elemental Evil at 1st level? Heck.. a 'properly played' in character 1st level should run away from that temple in the hopes that they will survive... but the GM spent some good money on that module so the player chooses to follow.

I can understand the situation you describe. I've only dozens of plot hooks etc from being apack rat about materials for 27+ years. many a time in the past have I played, and accepted the convenient from a real life perspective, 6 total strangers meet in a bar and decide to trust each otehr in securing untold wealth in the face of mortal danger. :\ Now we try to put a better face on it. But in a way that's a group railroad we all got on the train because we were too lazy to walk.

While I love the idea of adventures starting themselves, only intimate knowledge of a setting can provide that. What I do, and it works for us, is just ask the players what they are looking for and provide all the information there characters might have and the many ways their characters would know how to find more info. But when we jump on a train to dungeon X it's by consensus, and Ive luckily got enough material in my back pocket they can get off at any time.

In an ideal world the GM would have a rich detailed setting with plot-hooks galore and total player freedom. Personally I have only seen one game that reached even close to this stage....and the campaign is now in its 15th year... each character is invested in the game world with thier own motivations, goals, and and nemisisessses.{spelling?}
And the characters background restricted player freedom more than anything else....

But.. I think its all really a matter of perspective. Players cannot manupipulate events/circumstances that don't exist. Its up to the GM to provide the events/circumstances and present them in such a fashion that the players enjoy the game instead of dwelling on meta-game things like 'railroads' or 'balance'.. it should be a fun game.
Part and parcel of playing in a world described to you in the words of a person is the intrinsic manipulation by that one person based on what they describe and how they describe it.

Exactly in my view as well. That's why I take a narrow view of the specific term "railroad" where a DM gives you no choice and will bend in-game rules to force you to do something they want, which doesn't arise from anything the PCs do. It includes a DM not playing fair, which is where I see the killer DM aspect of "railroading" come in or the surprise piece of information about situation X that every creature above the age of 5 in the setting would know but the DM doesn't tell you.

Fer instance, I once went into deep detail on a dagger the PC's found in a closet. Had a card written up and a cute drawing of the wicked black dagger... The players assumed it was a plot device or special item because I had spent time on it. Manipulation? yup. But they carried that normal dagger around for 4 more sessions waiting for something 'kewl' to happen with it.

Funny how that happens. You did this intentionally to get them to think it was important? I've had such things happen but never intended it.

And I cannot imagine a game where DM manipulation doesn't exist. Its just that the better DM's do a better job of hiding the manipulation behind an illusion of player free choice.
What exactly is manipulating? Providing a drunkard in the bar to impart knowledge to the group regarding the BBEG that they would not otherwise discover?

Never done it. If someone is talking about a BBEG or such it is probably because it is local news people would naturally be talking about. Especially in an age before TV, gossiping and talking is what you did. Again this sort of thing, need to convey info to players, can be helped by asking players what they are interested in, old tales, relics, political infighting in the kingdom, then telling them what their characters would know about such things.

Ensuring that thier treasure allotment is equal to the wealth guidelines and stacked with items to assist in the next big encounter?

Never on treasure and yeah on the items. I do design encounters with a consistency to setting first, but sometimes with erring on the side of a fun game. For example, the party encounters the remains of a victim to a "trap" lets say in a secret passage. He is loaded for undead fighting. It happens he was an unlucky thief of a party of tomb robbers. This signals to the party that undead may be nearby but it makes sense such remains might be there. The theif didn't know what kind of undead he'd face, so he has got a bit of everything including plain wood crossbow bolts (wooden stakes). Now eveyone is conviced vampires are ahead. Not really, but the poor thief didn't know that.

Having brigands attack a caravan just as the group approaches?

It happens randomly but not as a plot device.

Having the group meet in a bar?

I've used it too much, but luckily only to get something going and we all agree to it. I've always had the characters agree to the little backstories I create as to how they all know each other and might potentially be predisposed to trusting each other. Often not much more than growing up in the same small town.

Flashing PC signs?

Maybe realted tot he above. New PCs don't come in without some conenction, however tenuous, to at least one member of the party. Ya' seez this here elf he is a friend of mine. Capice?

CR equivilent encounters? .....

Adventures designed with a entry portion that's not going to easily slaughter them? Sure, but I've worked that into setting. All CR balanced throughout, never, but I've been big on an ecology for decades and I think I end up doing by a "food-chian" approach what WotC has quantified. The areas where you get slaughtered at low level, you got to work to find yourself in, but you can and the only warning sign may be the bones.

Where do you draw the line between running the game and railroading?

Well it's never a railroad if we all agree to it IMHO. I count agreeing to it as accepting to play in a DMs setting. Once you agree to that you shouldn't complain about the setting as long as the DM is consistent within that setting. Setting have limits, hence distinguihing one from the other, some of which may be metagame as in I have 5 kids and a 6 day a week job so I can only prep so much.

As mentioned before, YMMV.

Funny thing is, despite my outlook on this topic, I would be quite content playing in RC's game, or in Quasqueton's for that matter. The whole point of the game is to have fun... or so I have been told.

Well I don't know if MMV. I agree the number one criteria for a great game is if everyone (DM included) is having fun.

 

[happyelf]

However, if Quas judged you harshly, why didn't you answer his questions?

Because we are already debating this on another thread, and because frankly I don't really think it's constructive to argue with you guys.

Please identify these examples as either a railroad or not a railroad:​

It depends on player preference and the style of play the group has agreed to. Different groups want different kinds of choices to make in the game. Some players always want a chance to fight, some players never enjoy being captured, some players are ok with anything it as long as it's by the rules, or by the setting. Others are not. It varies.

The fact that you're still ignoring this component of my definintion after i've said over and over again tells me that there is no point replying to you further.​

 

[The Shaman]

The bastards! They killed the Shaman!

I got better!

Are you suggesting that a GM can run a game without manipulating the players in any way shape or form?

I'm sure someone could make usage of the word 'manipulate' in this context sufficiently expansive to include any information presented by the game master, but for my purposes I'm going to reply in terms of your earlier statement:

A properly run game is one in which the GM manipulates events, NPC's, and circumstances in order to follow a story line, usually prepared in advance, in the attempt to reach a climax that is entertaining for all involved.

My answer is yes, a game master can run an exciting, immersive game without manipulating the players to follow a storyline.

No focusing of the players attention to an area due to description provided {or notable lack thereof}?

Ah, what was it I was saying about expansive definitions?

I don't attempt to focus or divert the players' (or their characters') attention. I describe what they see, hear, smell, touch, and taste, and allow them to draw their own inferences. I avoid creating encounters in which there is 'one right answer' without which the adventurers are completely stuck, or where it becomes absolutely necessary for the adventurers to encounter everything that I've prepared. An adventure that tightly structured may crash and burn without the game master's thumb on the scales, so I tend to create fluid, character-driven situations and play off the adventurers rather than attempting to steer them along a path toward THE CLIMACTIC ENCOUNTER!

No leading of the players with NPC interation that provides 'clues' as to the 'better' way to go?

"Better" for whom? The adventurers, or the game master's precious plot points?

Given the media of the game we play it is impossible to run a game where a turn of a phrase does not change how the players react to the described encounter.

Now everything a game master says, and every possible way it's said, is manipulation?

And lo, the definition expands to infinity. :\

Blunt and obtuse manipulation for the purpose of fitting into the GM's idea of how the game should go leads to complaints about rail-roading.
Skillful and artful manipulation for the purpose of challanging and entertaining leads to memorable games that are fondly recalled years after the fact.

So as long as the players don't figure out that their choices have no real meaning or effect, that's okay? Am I understanding that correctly?

Personally I think it matters a great deal, but that's just me.

 

[Hussar]

Now everything a game master says, and every possible way it's said, is manipulation?

And lo, the definition expands to infinity.

And this is the issue I have with HappyElf's definition of railroading. If EVERY action that a DM takes can be railroading, then there is no cut off. THere's no way to tell if it's good or bad. It simply, as TheShaman says, expands to infinity.

As I said in the other thread, there is a spectrum with complete player freedom on one end and none at the other. For me, the cutoff line for railroading is much closer to the none end than the freedom end. Beyond that cutoff, it's simply DM's doing their jobs. Before that cutoff, the DM is attempting to massage the game to fit into his view of how the game should look at the end.

Whether the players recognise it as such or not.

 

[happyelf]

And this is the issue I have with HappyElf's definition of railroading. If EVERY action that a DM takes can be railroading, then there is no cut off.

Yes there is.

THere's no way to tell if it's good or bad.

Yes there is.

It simply, as TheShaman says, expands to infinity.

No, it doesn't.

You're making no effort to understand what i'm takling about, but that's ok, because at least 60% of those polled do not have that problem.

 

[Hussar]

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

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.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I got better!

Glad to have you back!

I'm sure someone could make usage of the word 'manipulate' in this context sufficiently expansive to include any information presented by the game master...

And in truth, with the media in question...tonal inflection, pacing, even body language can lead a player into thinking a particular way about the information presented.
Standard generic example, you meet some scruffy looking nerf-herders on the road to Al'heirim..
Depending on how the GM describes the initial encounter can push the group to either attack or talk. Meta-game information, like having initiative cards stacked and ready, or pulling out figures from the box, have an effect as well.

My answer is yes, a game master can run an exciting, immersive game without manipulating the players to follow a storyline.Ah, what was it I was saying about expansive definitions?

Only if said players are motivated and involved in the setting enough to pursue said story line....

I don't attempt to focus or divert the players' (or their characters') attention. I describe what they see, hear, smell, touch, and taste, and allow them to draw their own inferences.

And in describing, intentionally or not, you shade these descriptions with what you want them to hear. Watch any 'news' channel. Your perspective will color the information and how you present it, which colors how it is received and acted upon.

An adventure that tightly structured may crash and burn without the game master's thumb on the scales, so I tend to create fluid, character-driven situations and play off the adventurers rather than attempting to steer them along a path toward THE CLIMACTIC ENCOUNTER!

Agreed on the first half.. but IMHO there are two extremes and neither of them result in as good a game as does taking the middle road...

"Better" for whom? The adventurers, or the game master's precious plot points?

Hmm.. I see a trend here. You have assumed that my stance is based on the extreme of the GM maintaining a selfish story line...
Rethink my comments after removing this assumption. The story line can well be the players..if they are willing to offer one..
If they are not willing to, then yes.. my story line, as the only fish in the water, will be the one to go with.

Now everything a game master says, and every possible way it's said, is manipulation?

Replace "game master" with "person" and you got it in one!

And lo, the definition expands to infinity. :\

Nay my friend.. you definition seems to have shrunk beyond comprehension...
Or perhaps, we are talking two completely different things...which I think is more likely.

I work under the assumption that any presentation can be colored by the presenters own motives, opinions, and assumptions. Look around on this board for examples, just upthread is a presentation of the definition of manipulation that provided only half the story.. the half that supported the posters viewpoint.

So as long as the players don't figure out that their choices have no real meaning or effect, that's okay? Am I understanding that correctly?

The best CP2020 game I ever ran resulted in a player approaching me the next day after he realized that the CIA had manipulated his character through a series of events in order to cut down some of the Corporate power in Night City. The players choices had very real meaning and very real effect.. the only difference is that I knew what those choices were going to be before they made them. By presenting the information in certain manners I led him to make the choices I expected.
If he had gone all wonky on me and went another way, then the Corps would have gained an edge over the CIA instead of the other way around. Real impact. In this case, it changed the face of Night CIty.

Leave the negative connotations aside for a moment....

Manipulation in itself is not a bad thing.
Manipulation by a GM who is more interested in thier own satisfaction than thier players is..

Railroading in itself is not a bad thing.
Railroading by a GM who is more interested in thier own satisfaction than thier players is..

Freedom of players to pursue thier own story line is not a bad thing.
Freedon of players who do not have a story line to pursue is...

 

[Raven Crowking]

It depends on player preference and the style of play the group has agreed to. Different groups want different kinds of choices to make in the game. Some players always want a chance to fight, some players never enjoy being captured, some players are ok with anything it as long as it's by the rules, or by the setting. Others are not. It varies.

The fact that you're still ignoring this component of my definintion after i've said over and over again tells me that there is no point replying to you further.

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

 

[Raven Crowking]

Primitive Screwhead,

Thanks for the expansion. Your more concise version looked a bit....wonky.

RC