Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[Beginning of the End]

I think your attempt to coin the new terms invisible and visible railroad will probably fail.

I wasn't even the first person to use it in this thread. And a quick Google reveals the term "invisible railroad" has been used since at least 2005. Google Groups indicates usage dating back more than a decade.

You might try reading the thread. It's not that hard and it's a lot easier than me re-posting the same crap every three pages because you can't be bothered.

Good heavens. Really?

Lemme know when you're interested in having an actual discussion. Right now you're just trolling.

I was wondering about this. In several places, 1974 OD&D says the GM must have a mega-dungeon ready before play can begin. Wilderness and town adventures are also discussed but they are more of an adjunct to the centre-piece of play, the dungeon, which is vast.

I'm going to dispute this. While the megadungeon was clearly a very important part of the game, the original White Box included more rules for non-dungeon play than for dungeon play. And some surprising aspects of the rulebooks had a primary focus on non-dungeon play. For example, the class descriptions. And the monster listings. (You weren't generating 30-300 goblins as a random encounter for the dungeon.)

In many ways, I think it can be argued that OD&D was the edition of the game which was least focused on the "kick down the door" style of play.

Although, ironically, it's also the edition of the game which serves as the strongest proponent for the megaduneon.

I don't view this as a contradiction.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I've never once heard those two terms used that way. That's an interesting concept, although I think coining that vocabulary amongst gamers as a whole would be tricky. I rather like the more straightforward description of conflict resolution systems as systems that exist to resolve conflict between characters.

Doing a Google for "conflict resolution RPG", I literally can't find anyone defining "conflict resolution" the way you do. Everyone defines it the way pemerton, Ariosto, and I do.

Including the people who, AFAICT, coined the term.

 

[Desdichado]

I wasn't even the first person to use it in this thread. And a quick Google reveals the term "invisible railroad" has been used since at least 2005. Google Groups indicates usage dating back more than a decade.

Finding a link doesn't demonstrate what you seem to think it demonstrates.

Lemme know when you're interested in having an actual discussion. Right now you're just trolling.

When I'm trolling, you'll know it. Right now I'm disagreeing with you. If that's your defense against disagreement--baseless accusations of trolling--then yeah, we won't have much of a conversation here.

Doing a Google for "conflict resolution RPG", I literally can't find anyone defining "conflict resolution" the way you do. Everyone defines it the way pemerton, Ariosto, and I do.

:shrug: I don't need to google. I've talked about conflict resolution thousands of times on the internet in the last fifteen years and never once heard of some kind of narrativist mechanic described as "conflict resolution."

The much more intuitive use of "conflict resolution" as being mechanics for, y'know, resolving conflict between characters I've heard every. single. time.

:shrug again: I'm not saying that your definition might not be in vogue in certain discussions somewhere... just that I've never seen it. And I've been talking about RPGs on the internet since there was an internet. I think you're way overstating the prevalence of your rather idiosynchratic usage.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think you are reading too much into this.

Also, the verb railroad has had negative connotations since the 1800s and I find it disingenuous that people are claiming it to merely mean "different" from their own style of play.

Meanings of Railroad:

1. compel by coercion, threats, or crude means
2. to push (a law or bill) hastily through a legislature so that there is not time enough for objections to be considered
3. to convict (a person) in a hasty manner by means of false charges or insufficient evidence

None of the definitions of the verb (other than the ones that pertain to actual railroads) have a positive aspect.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm going to dispute this. While the megadungeon was clearly a very important part of the game, the original White Box included more rules for non-dungeon play than for dungeon play.

You make a good case, maybe 'adjunct' is going too far. Vol 3 is called 'The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures' after all. Of its 36 pages, 11 concern the underworld, 6 the wilderness, 4 are about the PCs building castles and 11 are about mass battles on land, air and sea. We can say from that that dungeons are significantly more important than wilderness, but also that building castles and wargaming are more important than dungeons.

OD&D is not far removed from Chainmail. The idea seems to be that the game starts off as a rpg, in the dungeon, and becomes a wargame once the PCs are high enough level to build a stronghold and attract a body of men.

I would still maintain though that the dungeon is the centrepiece. That's where play starts, it's the only part the rules say the GM must create, the rest being optional. And play may never leave the dungeon, though OD&D does assume a long-term game where it eventually will.

 

[Ariosto]

Is that what you would call a railroad, when the GM only has one adventure prepared?

I call it a railroad if that 'adventure' is arbitrarily our only possible move, because otherwise there is no game and so no move.

If it's our adventure, in the old style, then that is not so bad. A DM with many players in a campaign would tend to give preference to those with well-organized adventures. Of course, he or she would also tend to have a campaign set up as the books instructed, and so be equipped to handle impromptu explorations.

Just how much railroading matters after that first "offer you can't refuse" is going to depend in part on how easy it is for the players to see the rails. We have already been given the ultimatum, and accepted it. As we want to play, we will do our best to stay on the track. If we wander, it's because we can't see the "right" (i.e., the DM's) way to go.

Then again, it could be a "commuter express". The 'railroad' mechanism simply serves to whisk the characters into some new environment or situation. After that, normal, free, game conditions resume.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is exactly why the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the only meaningful railroading can happen at the table. A module that's designed and written to be played as a railroad probably will be as often as not, without major rework from the GM.

A module can be written as an adventure; the adventure doesn't happen until the module is used at the table. A GM could certainly prevent such a module from being an adventure, but it would require some work!

A module can be written as a railroad; the railroad doesn't happen until the module is used at the table. A GM could certainly prevent such a module from being a railroad, but it would require some work!

Just as a module isn't an "adventure" until it is played out, neither is a module a "railroad" until it is played out. Yet, when most people refer to a module as an "adventure", they know what they mean. Likewise, when they refer to a module as a "railroad".

IMHO & IME. YMMV.

Also, the verb railroad has had negative connotations since the 1800s and I find it disingenuous that people are claiming it to merely mean "different" from their own style of play.

Well, sure it does.

If you accept my definition, those negative connotations exist for good reasons, because the GM is taking agency that should belong to the players.

The GM being given that agency by players who have both the knowledge that it is being given, and the option of doing otherwise, is something different.

IMHO. YMMV.


RC

 

[Beginning of the End]

So to sum this up, you start by claiming that I'm coining terms out of thin air which have actually been used previously in this very thread; in this forum since at least 2005; and on the 'net since at least 1999. And then...

I wasn't even the first person to use it in this thread. And a quick Google reveals the term "invisible railroad" has been used since at least 2005. Google Groups indicates usage dating back more than a decade.

Finding a link doesn't demonstrate what you seem to think it demonstrates.

(1) You lie above what I said, while quoting me saying something completely different from what you claim I said. (Or perhaps you're simply ignorant of what Google is? Check it out at Google. It's pretty cool.)

:shrug: I don't need to google. I've talked about conflict resolution thousands of times on the internet in the last fifteen years and never once heard of some kind of narrativist mechanic described as "conflict resolution."

The much more intuitive use of "conflict resolution" as being mechanics for, y'know, resolving conflict between characters I've heard every. single. time.

(2) You respond to evidence contradicting your claims with unreferenced anecdote and argumentum ad verecundiam.

When I'm trolling, you'll know it.

(3) But you're not a troll. No, really, you're not.

Well, you've earned yourself a second strike. But the offer to have a meaningful discussion with you as soon as you're interested in having a meaningful discussion still stands.

 

[Umbran]

Just last night, I had to warn a couple of people to stop getting personal, and to behave themselves. We should not have to give two such warnings in a 24 hour period at this point.

The thread's been going a good long time, and has reduced to butting heads? Time to close it. Thanks to all of you who kept things pleasant.