What is "railroading" to you (as a player)?

[Hriston]

To what degree? Where do "campaign constraints" turn into "railroad"?

When they are imposed by someone other than the player, and they control the PC's decisions or opportunities for decisions in any way which, in the player's opinion, breaks the agreements and expectations which govern play for that group.

 

[Reynard]

When they are imposed by someone other than the player, and they control the PC's decisions or opportunities for decisions in any way which, in the player's opinion, breaks the agreements and expectations which govern play for that group.

I mean, "We want to go to Sigil," vs "This campaign is set in ancient Ireland."

There is a line. "The GM says No," can't be the definition of "railroading". That is just silly.

 

[Umbran]

When they are imposed by someone other than the player, and they control the PC's decisions or opportunities for decisions in any way which, in the player's opinion, breaks the agreements and expectations which govern play for that group.

You know, I have issues with this being only two states, and only one party gets any input on what state you are in.

RPGs are endeavors in which people have to cooperate. Cooperation generally means nobody involved always gets exactly what they want. So, granting some space in there is probably in order.

 

[Hriston]

I mean, "We want to go to Sigil," vs "This campaign is set in ancient Ireland."

There is a line. "The GM says No," can't be the definition of "railroading". That is just silly.

What's silly is that you're positing a group where play has been predicated on the expectation of being able to go to Sigil even though the (presumably agreed upon) campaign setting is ancient Ireland. This group needs a session zero!

 

[Micah Sweet]

What's silly is that you're positing a group where play has been predicated on the expectation of being able to go to Sigil even though the (presumably agreed upon) campaign setting is ancient Ireland. This group needs a session zero!

If that specific example is a point of contention, then yes, absolutely.

 

[Hriston]

You know, I have issues with this being only two states, and only one party gets any input on what state you are in.

RPGs are endeavors in which people have to cooperate. Cooperation generally means nobody involved always gets exactly what they want. So, granting some space in there is probably in order.

I'm answering a question about when a "campaign constraint" meets the condition of a railroad, so the two states are railroad or not railroad, right?

I think it's highly subjective and has to be interpreted from the player's point of view because it's their character that's getting railroaded or not. No one (except you) is taking about anybody always getting what they want. I'm talking about table expectations and a player's interpretation of an instance of play with regard to those expectations.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A few people in a thread on teh interwebs isn't meeting that definition of language change. Railroading has a long history of use in terms of RPG games and it has never simply referred to linear design.

I dunno. You can argue the majority usage has made a distinction there, but there always have seemed to be a fair number of people who don't consider there to be a meaningful difference between "linear game" and "railroad", and as such don't use the former term as anything but a matter of degree. These are admittedly usually people who consider the less sandboxy a game is the worse it is. I know, I've argued with them any number of times, since its a position that excludes any number of campaign types and whole genres as legitimate ways to play.