Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[Obryn]

Then just why do you imagine that it should be regarded as 'railroading'?

Um. I don't think he did. I think he was asking you if you thought it was railroading.

What would be helpful would be for you to turn that energy instead to coming up with other, potentially clearer, words in which to express your own thoughts.

...

-O

 

[Ariosto]

It's certainly immutable and linear, which suggests its a railroad.

Yes, if it is in fact immutable and linear, then that is the very model of a railroad. It is also incompatible with my having complete freedom.

So, which in fact is it?

Or are you just playing Humpty Dumpty's game?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

An interesting example that tests the "linear=railroad" hypothesis is the "(Super)Natural Disaster" adventure. You know the kind: some wizard's experiment goes awry and for a night the town is plagued by zombies, frozen in ice, whathaveyou. there's no agency and no way to stop it, just a schedule of inevitable events (whether its x zombies per hour squared, or the ice zone doubling in diameter every hour), the Stuff (people, places and things around the PCs), and the PCs themselves.

It's certainly immutable and linear, which suggests its a railroad. But at the same time, there's no presupposed endpoint or requirement set upon the PCs, which suggests a freeform (or "sandbox") adventure. So which is it?

Depends on the DM handling it in this instance - if the DM has fixed events that the players cannot change, even if they are in a position to do so, then yes, it is a railroad. So the PCs are dragged along by the Niktuku to witness the death of Baba Yaga, and can't prevent it happening, getting dragged from scene to scene.... (Yes, I really do hate Time of Judgment.)

On the flip side, if the DM has the situation, but allows the PCs free reign to handle the scenario, leave town, convince the townsfolk to leave town, hole up in the crypts, loot the shops while the shopkeepers hide in the crypts, lure the critters into the abandoned church, chain the doors shut, then set fire to it... then it is not a railroad, the players have the option of leaving the rails.

If the PCs are in San Fransisco after the great quake, the city will catch fire, but what they do while the city is burning is up to them.

These are events, not scenarios per se.

The Auld Grump

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That's just it, though - when I see a "linear" adventure it's almost always the former. (For example, the 4e adventure P3 is insanely linear in structure.) I'm having a hard time thinking of pre-scripted and immutable adventures, though.

I have zero problem with calling an immutable series of events which the PCs can't affect in any meaningful way a "railroad" (if, that is, it's happening once the DM and players get their hands on it). But if there's even a player-directed chance of success or failure that's more involved than the GM basically saying, "Guess what I'm thinking!", I'm reluctant to use the term.

Yeah, me too. I find people are ready to use "railroad" for nearly any time they don't get absolute freedom. I use it the other way around, if there is even a hint of freedom, it isn't a railroad.

I'll only use it for the worst cases where the DM literally says "No" when you ask to do something that seems like a good idea with no particular reason why it isn't allowed.

And I allow an exception for any time the DM says "No" because it would simply end the game. I've used the example before, but I like to throw PCs into situations where they are the only one who can stop the world from ending. If they choose not to help, the world ends and they all die. It's that simple. I don't consider that railroading. The PCs can do whatever they want, including walk away. They just have to deal with the consequences of walking away. The biggest of which is that they don't get to play the game anymore.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Frankly, I've never liked the term "sandbox", that's where my cat does her 'biological business'.

But I agree with AG in that an outline of events with mutating scenarios as altered by the players is the way to go. But one part of the "sandbox" method as described by the latest edition of D&D that events don't happen until the players interact with them is just silly.

For example, I as a DM have designed an adventure area, one scenario includes a BBEG that when faced is easier to defeat if a particular item is used (similar to The One Ring and Sauron but not required to defeat the BBEG). According to the new suggested rules, that item always exists and is available for the PCs to snag and use. However, it is more likely that the item will be tracked by the BBEG, so if the players don't go after it when they find out about it, there is a chance that the BBEG got there first.

I think a DM should be doing a lot of behind the scenes calculations to keep realism at a high point; the real world spins each day and events keep unfolding regardless of whether you get up off the couch or not. So, why would your game world be any different, it doesn't force the players to follow a script, in fact, just the opposite, as their actions directly affect the outcome of what happens.

It doesn't take victory out of their hands, it just alters the circumstances. I have heard people say that any scripting/outlining/ideas not created by the players is wrong, frankly play something other than D&D, the DM has ALWAYS been the world designer, rules judge and arbiter (as well as a small supporting cast of of thousand of interactive characters, at least if the DM is doing their job correctly) yes an inexperienced DM can blow the balance but with practice the feel of the world is awesome.

Okay, I ready for the flames...

 

[Hussar]

snip for good stuff

If the PCs are in San Fransisco after the great quake, the city will catch fire, but what they do while the city is burning is up to them.

These are events, not scenarios per se.

The Auld Grump

That's an extremely fine line to make though. What distinguishes an "event" from a "scenario"? Aren't they pretty much synonymous?

The PC's are in a city. There is a festival in the city. People are partying in the street. An enemy of the PC's uses the distraction of the festival to attack the PC's as they enjoy the festival.

Railroad or not? Event or scenario? Scenario or adventure?

I mean, we're splitting some serious hairs here. RC is trying to claim that adventure is what happens AFTER play, but scenario is what's created before play. That's a new one to me. I've seen both used pretty interchangeably in the past. Module, scenario, adventure... do we really need to make distinctions here?

Personally, I take railroading to mean the DM has taken away player agency in such a way that the player objects. I mean, if the DM says, "I'm going to let a month pass, any objections?" and no one objects, that's not railroading, despite the fact that he just took away player agency. However, if the DM says, "One month passes" and ignores the players wishes entirely, that is railroading.

I'm a huge fan of aggressive scene framing. Glossing over small details to get to the big stuff. Not to everyone's taste, certainly, but, something I do appreciate in a game. I don't enjoy the book keeping that goes along with highly detailed exploration style games.

Am I being railroaded? I don't think so. I've accepted that details will be glossed over and trust my GM will bring the fun to the table. If you play with a GM you trust, you don't have to worry quite so much about losing a little player agency once in a while.

 

[Ariosto]

What distinguishes an "event" from a "scenario"? Aren't they pretty much synonymous? ... Railroad or not? Event or scenario? Scenario or adventure?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
While you're wandering around, you may occasionally notice a dotted red line across the ground. There is also a series of accompanying notice boards explaining that this marks the edge of the adventure and that no objects may be taken beyond the line. Your character has a metal wristband which, apparently, cannot be removed. As it is an object, you are kept within the realms of Kerovnia.

[/FONT] That is from a review (in British magazine Zzap!64 #20, November 13, 1986) of the Magnetic Scrolls computer adventure The Pawn.

 

[Ariosto]

Personally, I take railroading to mean the DM has taken away player agency in such a way that the player objects.

Some of us simply prefer to make our objection clear in advance. It saves a lot of bother.

 

[Krensky]

Obviously I've been running a railroad game for the past several years without realizing it because at the start of each adventure the PCs are given orders by an NPC and if they refuse the campaign will end because they'll be thrown in jail for 20 to life, at the least.

Whoa is me, I'm a filthy rotten control freak for not running a litterbox campaign the way the game is supposed to be played.

Of course it's a military based campaign and they're soldiers and officers (with a handful of civilian specialists employed by the military, I suppose they might just get fired), so they really don't have a choice since I'm not going to run a game of the PCs going rogue and escaping from Levenworth.

If you like emergent plot and litterbox play, fine. Stop implying or outright stating that those of us who don't and prefer something more structured and plotted are playing the game wrong.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

That's an extremely fine line to make though. What distinguishes an "event" from a "scenario"? Aren't they pretty much synonymous?

The PC's are in a city. There is a festival in the city. People are partying in the street. An enemy of the PC's uses the distraction of the festival to attack the PC's as they enjoy the festival.

Railroad or not? Event or scenario? Scenario or adventure?

The PCs are free to do as they want? Then the festival is an event, the assassins are an encounter at the event. Both the event and the encounter are part of a scenario.

Railroad version: GM: You are at the dunking booth, dunking witches when...
PC: Wait - why would I be at the dunking booth dunking witches? I like witches!
GM: I said 'You ARE at the dunking booth, and you ARE Dunking witches, when....'
PC: No, I am NOT! You Silly GM person.
GM: The scenario says you are, so you are....
PC: I am going to go play with my Wii, you have fun running my character for me....
Other PCs: You have a Wii? Can we play? Gotta be more fun than dunking witches....

I mean, we're splitting some serious hairs here. RC is trying to claim that adventure is what happens AFTER play, but scenario is what's created before play. That's a new one to me. I've seen both used pretty interchangeably in the past. Module, scenario, adventure... do we really need to make distinctions here?

For me it is a major difference in the use of terms - It is a hair as big around as a sequoia, and if you can't make out the difference then I may need to hit you with a hammer. A Nerf hammer, but a hammer nonetheless.

An event is what is going on. The festival will be happening, whether the PCs are there or not.

A fire is an event. It is going on whether or not the PCs are there, unless of course they are the ones who set the fire, or the fire was set because the PCs are there. It will still be an event even if the PCs are the cause/reason for the fire. Things are going on.

San Fransisco did have a great quake - it would still have the quake, even if the PCs are in Boston, listening to the church bells ring. It is an event - things are happening. Fires did level much of the city in the aftermath of the great quake. The fires will still happen, even if the PCs are in Boston, sitting in the church, sending alms to help the people displaced by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. The fires are an event subsequent to the great quake. The gathering of alms is an event that is taking place con-temporally with the fire in San Fransisco, and would be taking place whether or not San Fransisco got flattened then burst into flames.

At the festival the PCs are attacked by a bunch of goons, sent by the bad guy. The attack is an encounter at the event. The GM has both the festival and the attack in an adventure - adventure is, for this usage, synonymous with scenario.

At the church in Boston the PCs meet up with a kindly vicar who tells them that he feels that something terrible has just happened, but that he is not certain of what. Meeting the vicar is an encounter at that event. As it happens the volcano, the earthquake, and the fire have nothing to do with the scenario - the GM has just noticed the game date, and felt like adding some flavor. The important part is the meeting with the vicar, who will be important later in the scenario.

Personally, I take railroading to mean the DM has taken away player agency in such a way that the player objects. I mean, if the DM says, "I'm going to let a month pass, any objections?" and no one objects, that's not railroading, despite the fact that he just took away player agency. However, if the DM says, "One month passes" and ignores the players wishes entirely, that is railroading.

And no argument there. (What? You thought I was going to disagree with you?) It is close enough to my own definition of railroading that I can live with it - I might add that for me it would really become railroading only after the same thing happens repeatedly, but that is just an argument over how many, not kind.

I'm a huge fan of aggressive scene framing. Glossing over small details to get to the big stuff. Not to everyone's taste, certainly, but, something I do appreciate in a game. I don't enjoy the book keeping that goes along with highly detailed exploration style games.

Am I being railroaded? I don't think so. I've accepted that details will be glossed over and trust my GM will bring the fun to the table. If you play with a GM you trust, you don't have to worry quite so much about losing a little player agency once in a while.

It doesn't sound like railroading to me, either. Now if the GM was dragging your character from place to place, event after event, encounter after encounter, then I think both of us would agree that it is railroading.

Rather a long winded means of basically just saying 'I agree', wasn't it? I mostly just wanted to clarify my terms, for my own usage. My only real disagreement was calling it splitting hairs, since to me the distinction seemed obvious.

The Auld Grump