Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[Doug McCrae]

But if my only choices are only Craptown and Awesomevania then it's a railroad.

Cake or death.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNjcuZ-LiSY]YouTube - Eddie izzard-cake or death[/ame]

 

[Ariosto]

Ariosto, I'm not discussing this any more with you in this thread.

Good. I did not ask you to discuss it with me.

I asked you to stop doing it.

Enough. Stop bickering, both of you. I'll also add that telling other people what to do is a guaranteed way to get both frustrated and moderated. there are better ways to have a discussion here. ~ PCat

 

[Ariosto]

Linear: Day 1 the Evil Vizier has his minions kidnap some innocents ...

None of that is inherently here or there in the context where 'linearity' counts. There are eight million stories in the naked city, each one in the event 'linear', and that is one of them.

When the DM decides that this is "the" NPC business to which the players "must" pay attention, then that's a pretty significant step. It establishes the motive for getting pushy. The DM now has a way to get, and so faces the possibility of not getting his way if he just stands back and lets the players play.

 

[jdrakeh]

You're interpreting my behavior as malicious, and I don't think further discussion will be either entertaining or productive.

Oh, no, I assure you that it's entertaining!

 

[ExploderWizard]

I
Well, if you assume that nobody else could do it, instead...

But let's make it smaller scale - it's a village the PCs started in, but have moved on from. It will be destroyed if the PCs do nothing. Railroad?

-O

Nope. If the Pc's fail to act or fail in their attempt there are negative consequences for that but the world keeps turning. Serious consequences for failure are part of losing sometimes.

Constantly saving the world gets tiresome. In these situations either the fix is in and failure is not possible OR the DM is tired of the campaign and hopes it blows up.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree.

I would say, however, that if you said you would like the players to do so, and they agreed, it would not be a railroad, even if they agreed to allow you to start the next session already at the gates of the plaza.


RC

This may be true but the agreement and social contract of a particular group cannot be said to apply universally. In other words, if the scenario I described was written into a product ( say, a sequel to Forest Oracle ) then we would need to judge the railroad factor of the product on it's own. I mean, not every DM would provide booze and strippers so not every group would agree to the scenario.

Sure. An example I've pointed to before is P3 - which is intensely linear, but largely site-based. That is...

(spoilered for players playing it.)

Spoiler

You go to the Gloomdeeps, you go to the Tomb, you arrive outside the Fortress, you must visit everywhere in that Fortress to get access to four macguffins, you get access to the tower, you face the Dragon.

And that's it.

This is a very linear module, in that you could basically set every single encounter down a single tunnel, separated by a few feet of corridor, without a single fork in the road. The only thing approaching a "branch" is if the PCs decide to go to the top of the fortress and work their way down, but even that's a false one.

What distinguishes it from a railroad are a few major things, in my mind...
(1) The solutions to each encounter aren't set in stone. Players can find innovative ways to get around them, through them, or bypass them entirely.
(2) Success and failure are both actual options, depending on the players and not on the DM's fiat.
(3) The players' actions are neither assumed nor pre-scripted
(4) Minimally, the players could say, "To heck with this" and go do something else - which they could not do, in a railroad.

The linearity is a result of the (depressing) way the maps are designed, not because of requirements in how the plot must progress.

Now, if a poor DM runs it and doesn't allow for novel solutions, doesn't allow creative problem solving, and doesn't allow them to abandon the whole darn mission, it could easily be a railroad. Heck; there's a scene where the PCs might interact with and possibly fight the "BBEG" - but only if they've tarried too long and have been discovered. If the PCs manage to kill him off early, but the DM fudges the result, that's pretty railroady right there. For another example, the PCs need to get to the Shadowfell pretty early on, and a method of doing so is presented. If they have a way of doing it that isn't the one set forward in the adventure, and the DM vetoes it, that'd be railroady as well.

As it stands, though, it's just a bad adventure.

-O

From what you have described it sounds like a similar setup to The Ghost Tower of Inverness. In Ghost Tower the PC's need to aquire 4 parts of a key which are found in small dungeons beneath each corner of the keep. Once they have the key assembled they can open the central chamber and enter the tower, to retrieve the soul gem.

Replace keys with macguffins and the soul gem with a dragon and there you go.

You can tackle the first parts in any way you wish, walk away, or whatever. I don't see this as very linear either.

 

[Ariosto]

The tournament background for The Ghost Tower of Inverness had the PCs as convicted criminals sent to the tower at the command of the Duke of Urnst.

If that were a sudden imposition in the course of a campaign, it might not be acceptable. Such 'railroading' is not terribly unusual for tournaments, though.

In a tournament, there is no previously ongoing game to be "taken offline", interrupted by putting the players on rails.

A series of discrete episodes makes it very clear. In our last meeting, we played a particular scenario. This time, we play another essentially as a separate game. We are using some of the same characters. However, what happens to them between scenarios is not a matter of play-moves. It is not inside the game. Whatever is necessary to the initial conditions of the new game is simply assumed.

 

[Remathilis]

You can tackle the first parts in any way you wish, walk away, or whatever. I don't see this as very linear either.

Lets say you have a room with 5 exits. Four exits lead to rooms with an encounter and a key. The fifth cannot be opened until all four keys are in place.

You can encounter the rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, or 2, 3, 1, 4, or 4, 3, 2, 1, or 1, 4, 3, 2, or any combination of the four. You cannot encounter 5 until the first four are done, and you can always leave. (Hidden option 6).

That is not linear, right?

I'm going to argue it is. Here's why. Lets assume you cannot (via any mundane or magical means) enter room 5 without exploring 1-4. IMHO the order of 1-4 doesn't matter, you have established an linearity to the adventure (first X, then Y, where X is get 4 key, and Y is open 5th door). There is no other recourse except abandoning the mission. That is linear (though not strictly so, since 1-4 can be done in any order).

It it was a railroad, 1 MUST be done before 2, and the PCs have no choice but to do that. You cannot pick the order of the rooms, nor could you leave if you so chose.

If it was a sandbox, 1-5 would all be viable choices, but 1-4 would allow the PCs significant advantage in room 5 (such as keys that opened windows that allowed sunlight to flood a vampire's domain). The PCs could enter some, all, or none of the rooms; skip ahead to room 5, or leave and go fight swamp orcs.

I'm sure no one's game confirms EXACTLY to any of those, but they may serve as a decent example of the different playstyles.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Linear: Day 1 the Evil Vizier has his minions kidnap some innocents, Day 2 the minions will transport the victims to the Sunburst Vale, Day 4 the victims will be sacrificed to bring forth and controll the Aithar Ghosts.

What the characterss do after getting a few clues/hooks is totally up to the Players.

Wait... So the PCs would be fully capable of hypothetically freeing the prisoners on Day 1 and stop the Evil Vizier from transporting them to Sunburst Vale? (Perhaps forcing him to kidnap more victims on Day 3, and similarly postponing the rest of his plans unless they catch him first.)

I'm confused. Where, exactly, is the linearity in that design? To my eyes you appear to be describing a non-linear scenario. That's not a plot, it's a situation.

I guess we need to come at this from the opposite angle. What would a non-linear version of this scenario look like for you?

 

[Obryn]

Nope. If the Pc's fail to act or fail in their attempt there are negative consequences for that but the world keeps turning. Serious consequences for failure are part of losing sometimes.

Constantly saving the world gets tiresome. In these situations either the fix is in and failure is not possible OR the DM is tired of the campaign and hopes it blows up.

So, essentially, you're okay with railroading the cultists who both possess the power to blow up the world, and the desire for it?

-O