Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[Reynard]

Please, though, explain what a "linear scenario" is. How is it different from a 'railroad'?

Let's put it this way: in a linear scenario, the PCs move under their own power, while in a railroad, the trains keeps going forward no matter what. Does that illustrate the difference?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Let's put it this way: in a linear scenario, the PCs move under their own power, while in a railroad, the trains keeps going forward no matter what. Does that illustrate the difference?

Examples? Relate "moving under their own power" to linear for us if you wouldn't mind.

 

[evileeyore]

Please, though, explain what a "linear scenario" is. How is it different from a 'railroad'?

Railroad: Players have little to no control over the character's destiny, little to no affect over the outcome of the pace of events.


Linear Plotline: Event will occur regardless of character's action or inaction, however the Player's still control the characters actions and behavoir. Events may be altered by the character's actions, or not, depending on the competence and resources of the characters.


Simple enough?

 

[Ariosto]

To some, it feels like you're stretching the term "Railroad" to constitute anything you dislike...)

Some is welcome to point out just where I do so, rather than being so vague. If the feeling has any relevance to what I have actually written, then we have something to discuss.

Pure nothing, though, needs no more than nothing to discount it.

 

[Ariosto]

No. Railroading under the original definition is still bad gaming. Railroading under your expansion of the term encompasses both good and bad gaming.

Really?

What "expansion" would that be?

I am afraid I can take credit only for my own words.

 

[Obryn]

Really?

What "expansion" would that be?

I am afraid I can take credit only for my own words.

We're going in circles, here, and I'm not even sure that we're speaking the same language at this point. I've explained exactly what I was saying in earlier posts, but I don't know that we can have a productive or even entertaining conversation with each other on this topic.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

We could just go by the majority interpretation, which is that if a player doesn't feel railroaded then they aren't. This has, I believe, been demonstrated by past polls on ENWorld.

Actually, AFAICT, past polls have defined railroading effectively as: "Railroading means whatever the players say it means." This allows for no even-sort-of objective definition, and therefore no fruitful discussion. It also means that if the players call it a railroad, no matter how open the scenario, no matter how accommodating the GM, a railroad it is.

Personally, I consider the term to mean something at least kinda-sorta objective, where people's ability to perceive what is occuring in the game, willingness to apply specific terminology to what is perceived, and/or emotional reaction to said railroading where it exists, all combine to make the issue seem far cloudier (to some) than it is.

IMHO, railroading is "the usurpation of player agency by the GM". The term "usurpation" does mean that the GM is making decisions which are legitimately the players', in terms of the ruleset used and the social contract at the table. So long as the players and the GM are in accord, there is no railroading (although the potential might exist); it is when the players expect -- and should reasonably expect -- agency that the GM denies them that railroading occurs.

Whenever the players expect that the dice determine the outcome, and the GM fudges, the players expect -- and should reasonably expect -- agency that the GM denies them. That they do not know about it (i.e., so-called "illusionism") is no help here. The denial of knowledge that the ruleset is not being adhered to is a method of stealthy usurpation. The goal is that the scenario or encounter plays out within parameters chosen by the GM. Indeed, systems that allow the player to know about it, and make decisions when to apply it (frex, Action Points) are not railroading, simply because they do not usurp player agency in this way.

There are times when a situation occurs where agency should not be reasonably expected -- it is possible to paint yourself into a corner. Nor is it railroading because the GM denies a player wish to suddenly turn his character into a minotaur, fly to the moon, or bring a warforged ninja character into a Pirates of the Carribean setting.

Railroading is not railroading simply because the players say it is. Nor is everything that some players may wish to claim as railroading actually the genuine article.

Railroading also is not somehow "not railroading" simply because the GM says it is not.

However, because of the "usurpation" requirement, nothing is railroading if both the GM and players say it is not, if both the GM and the players actually understand the situation (i.e., they are not being lied to by the GM ala the standard fudging scenario). The players absolutely have the authority to grant the GM any agency they wish. That is not usurpation, and it is not railroading.



IMHO, anyway. YMMV.


RC



-

 

[Ariosto]

We're going in circles, here, and I'm not even sure that we're speaking the same language at this point.

Well, in common English it is pretty plain that when you tell someone that "your expansion of the term" is thus and so, then you are claiming that there is in the first place something that person has in fact offered as "his expansion".

That is a claim for which you can give evidence, if it is not false. At the very least, you can be specific in your accusation! To expect someone to plead guilty to a list of charges to which he is not privy is unreasonable.

Here, again, is the definition I have in fact offered:

The GM makes sure that the players arbitrarily are deprived of a freedom to depart from a set sequence of moves/events/encounters/scenes/whatever.

Please, with what part of that do you disagree?

If you have in mind some other statement of mine that you think is at odds, then please bring it forward.

 

[Scribble]

Some is welcome to point out just where I do so, rather than being so vague. If the feeling has any relevance to what I have actually written, then we have something to discuss.

Pure nothing, though, needs no more than nothing to discount it.

What I'm saying is if you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. (Or is it get dressed in the basement?)

You obviously have a strong feeling of what constitutes a railroad. That's fine- I don't think I've ever indicated your feelings aren't valid?

I'm only asking hat you accept that others have a less stringent view of what
= a railroad.

You don't get to decide their subjective opinion any more then they get to decide yours, and they're not out to trick you into anything... They just disagree with your opinion.

Right. Now it's not bad gaming to a lot of folks.

What has changed, though, is not the nature of the phenomenon.

What has changed is the fashion in "good gaming".

Different people have different tolerances for it.

Different people who change it to mean "only railroading I don't like" change it to mean different things.

Some people who really like it a lot do all sorts of things with the language that leaves it pretty useless for communication except with fellows fluent in their cant.

Confusion is a weapon in the cause of attacking critics of railroading.



That does not look like an improvement. It's just a wordier way to say 'railroads', subject to all the same trickery in rhetoric.

 

[Scribble]

The GM makes sure that the players arbitrarily are deprived of a freedom to depart from a set sequence of moves/events/encounters/scenes/whatever.

If you have in mind some other statement of mine that you think is at odds, then please bring it forward.

I pretty much agree with that statement although I would remove arbitrarily... it's not really arbitrary. It's willful in my opinion.

What I think seems to be the REAL disagreement though is when this definition applies.