What do you consider a "railroading" module?

[Raven Crowking]

The Shadowdale / Tantras / Waterdeep!!!
Back in `90 I didn't know the term "railroad", but when I found these modules, I was sickened TSR calls pseudo-novel script a rpg.

I actually stopped buying modules until 3e, the 2e ones were so bad.

RC

 

[Psion]

I have always considered GDQ1-7 to be one long massive set of tracks.

Without major work from the GM, there is but one path to trod down.

I don't think GDQ comes close to the definition of railroading. Having a goal or being in a dungeon does not constitute railroading. They do have obstacles along the way, but general they aren't forced through them in a particular order or forced to deal with them in a particular way. D3 is a setting in itself, with a variety of possible opportunities and encounters before grappling with their final foe.

Compare night below book 2, in which powerful magic compels them to not use a bypassing passage, and they must slog through the derro and kuo toa caverns.

 

[GQuail]

I once thought that railroading was when the DM usurped choices that were rightfully the players', in order to bring about a more linear narrative.

When I ran a poll, though, the definition that seemed most favored is "Whatever the player says it is."

There is some merit in that definiton, though: specifically, if a group feel they are being boxed into a railroading situation, then there is clearly a problem of some sorts, even if it's "obvious" to the DM that there's alternatives. Meanwhile, a group who are railroaded and don't notice are possibly so wrapped up in the adventure that it just works for them: and if they notice but have fun, hey, who am I to argue?

Sometimes, a scientific definiton doesn't matter: what does is if the players voice a problem with it or not, because no matter how "incorrect" their definition is, you have a problem in your group. The example by Treebore of someone who complained at the "gather four quest items/plot coupons" stuff is perhaps a good case: that's classic D&D to me, and the basis of a horde of adventures, but if the players are clearly non-plussed about running it then the GM and they need to sit down and talk about exactly what sort of adventure they werte expecting instead.

For what it's worth, though, I think your personal definition is pretty close to the mark. ;-)

 

[tx7321]

A destinction needs to be drawn between a module that has 1 or 2 railroading elements (usually to start the adventure like White Plums assumption your going on this mission and saving the role play of accepting the task) and a module with frequent railroading elements that act like a straight jacket.

Like P&P stated there is both good and bad railroading. Some gets the game started and keeps it moving but allows the players to be free to act as they like otherwise, others create stories the PCs float along with, in opposition to the philosophy and point of role play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sometimes, a scientific definiton doesn't matter: what does is if the players voice a problem with it or not, because no matter how "incorrect" their definition is, you have a problem in your group.

Agreed. But having some clear ideas as to what the problem may be is generally aided by having the clearest definitions possible.


RC

 

[spectre72]

Another Vote for the Original DL Module Railroad.

So bad that they were put on a shelf and never opened again.

Scott

 

[Treebore]

I hope that you are not thinking my definition too strict? I thought it was fairly straightforward, and perhaps even useful.

A railroad has to have linear elements. If you are given 7 or 700 choices, it isn't a railroad....even if you aren't happy with the choices you believe are available. If the DM is doing something within the bounds of his authority (i.e., not taking authority that is legitimately the players') it is not a railroad. Setting a campaign in Ravenloft isn't a railroad; neither is role-playing an NPC, even if the PCs do not like what the NPC does.

I would agree with you in your definition as well. I don't think that they are incompatable.



Yup.
RC

No, I wasn't targeting you. I agree that it looks like you and I have a very similiar opinion of what railroading is. My initial statements were generalizations with my leading into more specific definitions of what I think RR is.

 

[Treebore]

Another Vote for the Original DL Module Railroad.

So bad that they were put on a shelf and never opened again.

Scott

Well, no. The map/locations were often too awesome to not be used. So write your own story about the location and then use it. High Clericist Tower is in every campaign world I have run, Greyhawk, Faerun, Wilderlands, Erde, Ravenloft, etc... It is just too cool not to use.

So were locations in many of the other modules.

But yes, the modules were written very RRoady.

 

[iwatt]

I raise your Hour of the Knife with one Silver Anniversary Dragonlance Classics, complete with a scene in DL1 where someone falls into the fire at the Inn of the Last Home and the ONLY way to deal with it is to whack them with the Blue Crystal Staff, as it was in the book. (The text literally forbids ANY other solution. Even stop, drop and roll.)

And if I could find an image I'd call and raise you one Ravenloft "House on Griffon Hill".

The ending scene was so railroady our Gm all of the sudden stopped and said: "Don't worry about rolling dice anymore, I'll telll you how it ends now."

 

[drscott46]

The Shadowdale / Tantras / Waterdeep!!!
Back in `90 I didn't know the term "railroad", but when I found these modules, I was sickened TSR calls pseudo-novel script a rpg.

In the one of my favorite adventures Witch Fire The Longest Night there is a moment of terrible railroading, when the PCs explore hideout of one-of-all-trilogy-bad-guys and they meet "him". There is possible to talk, fight, but if you dare to catch "him", "he" has even >>specially modified hold person spell<< .

The worst part of the Avatar modules is that the PCs really have very little to do with the outcome of the story. Most of everything is driven by the NPCs (Elminster, Midnight, Kelemvor, et al.) and the PCs just follow along and maybe don't get killed. They're told at virtually every turn exactly what to do, and even then if they don't do it, eventually an NPC will either just move things along or tell them again (like a computer game or something) until they do it.

And I liked the novels. I still find the storyline quite original. But the modules... terrible. Why Greenwood couldn't have just borrowed the thought from the writers of the Curse of the Azure Bonds module and made a companion to the books instead of a direct rehash with the same characters in the same roles I'll never know.