Quote from: RPGPunditOk, lets start by figuring out what is and what is not Railroading.

Railroading is NOT when the PCs are helpless to do something that they should not be able to do.
In other words, in the real world, you might be in a situation where your only option is to go from room A to room B; likewise, in an RPG having Room A lead to Room B is not railroading, as long as that was always the only real option.

What IS railroading is when the characters are unable to do something they should be able to do in the internal "realism" of the emulation of the game, just because it doesn't suit your plans for them.  In other words, they may have done something unexpected, figured something out too soon, etc, and so you actually change the pieces in the background so that they don't get their just reward.

I pretty much agree. It should especially be noted that the GM in any traditional RPG has vast, vast powers to create "You are in Room A, the only exit is to Room B" situations as and when he or she wants to.

If the players walk into Room A from Room B, it's not railroading to point out there are no other exists. If you use GM fiat (or wildly unbalanced encounters) to knock them out and have them wake up in Room A, on the other hand...

QuoteLikewise, unless the options are actually illusory IN the real game being emulated, creating an illusory choice (where it appears that the PCs have a choice of where to go and that affects things, but in reality they don't) is railroading.  So if Space Villain Bloggs will have his hideout on Planet A if they go to Planet B, and on Planet B if they go to Planet A, that's railroading.

Agreed, with the caveat that if the PCs are actually searching for Space Villian Bloggs, and have a decent reason to go to a particular planet to find him, it's not railroading to put him there - I would argue that it's more railroady to say "the PCs must go to this particular planet to find Bloggs".

An example from my local gaming scene: a GM I am aware of was running a published scenario in which the PCs eventually meet up with an NPC in a nightclub, at which point some pre-scripted stuff goes down. The PCs in the game started off by looking for him in the docks, because they had heard that this NPC had business interests there and reasonably assumed he'd check in on those sooner or later - after all, people turn up at their workplace at predictable times of the day on a reliable basis, which is not true of the nightclubs they frequent. Eventually they tired of looking for him there and went to the nightclub instead, where the encounter happened. That's kind of boring.

Quote from: -E.I agree -- although I'm not sure where the OP draws the line... I think the example you gave above might fall into his definition of railroading.

Not really. If the goons didn't follow my character out through the back door that would be completely ridiculous.

If I manage to outsmart them in the chase scene and get away, but then get captured anyway for some spurious reason, on the other hand, that'd be a railroad. Why not just let me get away if I roll well enough and run an adventure about me trying to work out who's sending these goons after me instead?

I should also make it clear that I don't consider railroading to be a bad thing. What I do consider poor form is surprise railroading - not telling your players that you intend to massage events to some degree - or railroading-in-denial - deploying railroading techniques while barefacedly denying that that's what you are doing.

Skipping past all the subsequent posts. I'm taking a break at work and don't have time to read all that. I also have to warn you that I don't have much patience for sophistry and deliberate misreading. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, Tony, but I request that you do the same and assume I've given these issues some thought.

Quote from: TonyLB'course it matters.  If you tackle the flame-castle first then your earliest encounters are with flame-beasties.  Entirely different story than if you tackle the ice-castle first.

No.

Look, the GM asks the players, "Which castle do you want to hit first?"

There may be a degree of misunderstanding, a disconnect between what the GM implies and what the players infer. But the minute the GM sees the players arguing about which one is more likely to have the princess, if the GM secretly thinks, "Hah, it'll be in whichever one they visit second", instead of just telling the players, "Dudes, you have to visit both castles", then the GM is misleading the players.

QuoteAre you saying that it doesn't matter because that decision cannot short-cut the story from a novel-length to a chapter-length story?  Because that's an awfully odd thing to hold out for as the only way that decisions can matter.

Odd or not, that's what I'm saying. The players think they're making a decision on the same basis and with the same goals as their characters, who are trying to save the princess as quickly as possible.

I think I get what you're saying:  If the players believe that they can, by their actions and choices, shorten the sequence of events then the GM has the opportunity to correct them.  Like, "Dudes, you know she's going to be in the last castle you check ... you don't really want me to throw away a perfectly good four-elements theme just because you guess lucky, do you?"

But saying "You cannot effect this" is not the same as saying "You cannot effect anything," right?  Is the issue (as I post above) that the GM is preventing the players from making a choice on precisely the thing they want to make the choice about (in this case, how quickly the story resolves)?

Quote from: McrowThere is no use in trying to define it, not two people on this earth would see it the same way.

I strongly disagree. In fact, I think that sitting down and coming up with a recognizable, accepted (not universally, mind you...) and 'testable' definition of what railroading IS is the first step to cutting out bullshit arguments.

Replace 'railroading' with any term of choice, up to an including the Forge Jargon.  

The first step in solving a problem is always to identify the problem.

Here we have people talking about what is, or is not, railroading... and one statement that its impossible to define because people don't see it the same way.

The problem here is actually the lack of a clear definition of railroading.

By the power invested in me by the RPGsite I hereby issue forth the 'Spike Model of Railroading GMing' for use as a definition and testable equation.

*you are, of course, free to disagree and submit your own theory, complete with over the top name, and later discussions can refer to one or another. May the strongest definition survive!

In Roleplaying Games, the Term Railroading refers to form of behavior from the 'Game Master' where upon the 'Players' of the game are denied freedom of choice in action during the game itself.  Railroading may take overt and covert forms, but should not be confused with 'Illusionism'.  Railroading, as defined in this theorum, is a disruptive method of play and should be resolutely avoided.

Covert Railroading consists of repetetive denial of choice by recourse to mechanics and lack of options given. Typically, players who stray from the GM's chosen actions are met with increasingly difficult 'encounters', insurmountable obstacles and other threats to force them onto the preselected path, referred to as 'rails'.   Covert railroading is very common and particularly insidious as often it is viewed as 'legitimate play' by those involved.

Overt Railroading consists of refusing to allow players to even make legitimate decisions about their actions if said actions depart from the 'Rails' in any way. Roads loop back recursively, walls are indestructable, chosing an 'invalid' action is even outright ignored. Players are often told they simply can not do something.

Note that railroading does not have a minimum threshold of behavior. There is no tolerence. However, it does establish a distinct arena where railroading occurs 'During Play'.  The GM can chose to start the game any way he choses, and perform any degree of prepatory work he wishes.  It is the inability of Players to influence play that is the mark of a Railroaded Game.





Note: This is still in 'rough draft' format and may not be as clear as it should be.  However, readers are encouraged to refer to it by name in any and all future discussions of Railroading and should preferrably sneer at any they speak to who are not conversant with it's details.

(In reply to Tony.)

Well, yeah...although introducing the word "story" starts to make my nose itch.

And the players' wanting to affect something is getting ahead of things slightly. It boils down to expectations: the players may not care if they can affect this or that, they just don't want to be fooled into thinking that some decision could be importrant for the outcome they're aiming at, when actually it's guaranteed to be irrelevant.

QuoteBut saying "You cannot effect this" is not the same as saying "You cannot effect anything," right?

Of course. Just don't try to give me the impression that I'm affecting something when I'm not. After that, we can talk about what it is that I'd like to have an affect on.

Here's a little example from a solo adventure I played. The PC opens a door and sees two human-like forms in the shadows. He opts to charge. The book asks whether he'll charge the left one or the right one. But no matter which he chooses, it always turns out that he's charging a mannequin and the other figure is a human fighter.

So? There aren't any clues. The player isn't being misled, right? Wrong. The player's being told that charging one figure or the other could have an effect on how the combat goes. Instead, the player's guaranteed to start at a disadvantage.

Repeat this general type of trick a few times, and now the player just doesn't give a damn. He knows he's screwed no matter what, and now he doesn't trust any of the decisions thrown out by the GM.

"North or south?"
"Whatever--just get me to the part of the game where what my character does will actually make a difference."

Quote from: Pierce InverarityQuestion: what to do?

a) Railroad (and openly tell players as to why);

b) Waste the evening with walking PCs through boilerplate expedition prep and the statistical average of 2.79 equally boilerplate jungle encounters;

c) Shame us all by mad improv skillz... slightly hampered by equally mad flipping through assorted supplements for NPC/monsters stats (a Rakshaza would be cool in general and in a jungle in particular, but screwed if I have all its spells & abilities at my fingertips.)

Not easy.

Man, if I'm willing to tell the players about the pyramid, I'm gonna stat it out. They might want to come back in the future, anyhow, so it might well not be a waste.

Sadly, a lot of my work goes unseen, but my players keep coming back. I don't run a whole lot anymore, though, because that's a lot of work.

You know, my players like solving a mystery. This means interviewing specific people, discovering clues etc. So you could say, the pcs have to push button A and only button A to get to the next level. How they go about pushing button A is up to them...now yeah, I could improv the whole thing and not use a plot, but sometimes having such a free form game leads to a feeling of "there wasn't really a mystery to begin with" ....so am I guilty of railroading ? Maybe . It so depends on how I execute the adventure.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenOf course. Just don't try to give me the impression that I'm affecting something when I'm not. After that, we can talk about what it is that I'd like to have an affect on.

That's very sensible.  I don't take issue with that in the same way that I took issue (earlier) with:

Quote from: Elliot WilenBasically it's giving the players the illusion that such-and-such a decision matters, when it doesn't really.

You're not merely saying that you want the decision to matter, but that you want your decision to matter in a specific way.  You want input on (in this case) how quickly you find the princess.

Other play-groups might legitimately want input on other stuff ("Do we face the fire-demons first, or the ice-demons first?") and not care whether they had any impact on how quickly they found the princess.  For those groups, the moving princess routine wouldn't be a railroad ... yes?

Quote from: WarthurYes. But if you said upfront that the game is going to be mission-based the players have bought tickets, sat down in their seats, and are ready for the ride. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you didn't give the players that heads up, you've tossed them onto a cattletruck on a moving train. If you then turn around and deny that you're railroading... you're the sort of railroader-in-denial that sets my teeth on edge.

I don't think of the Lord of the Rings scenario as being a railroad; I'd like to understand your perspective a bit better.

Would *any* game situation where some GM-controlled force is acting be considered a railroad?

Here's a spectrum of situations -- are any of *these* railroads?

These are all situations where the GM is not forcing any action and the PC's are free to ignore the situation with no consequences

• You learn there's a treasure buried in the old, undead-infested graveyard. You  can choose to go in and get it... or not. If you don't, you're pretty sure there are other treasures out there.
• You learn there's a treasure in the graveyard. You can choose to pursue or not... but if you don't, you may not discover the location of another treasure.
• You learn about the treasure. There are *other* treasures out in the world, but you're low-level. If you go after a better-defended one, you're likely to get killed

These are all situations where something is happening and if the PC's don't take actions there will be consequences to their world

• Undead are emerging from the graveyard every night and threatening a nearby town. If you deal with the threat, you'll get a bounty.
• Undead are emerging from the graveyard every night and threatening *YOUR* town. If you don't deal with the threat, people in your town will likely be injured or killed
• Undead are coming to your town. They're powerful and you're not. Your only real chance to save the town is to recover a powerful relic from a nearby ruin.

Just to be clear: I see some of these as being more-restrictive than others, but I wouldn't consider any game a railroad just because of starting situation (I see railroading as something that happens in-play, when the GM mishandles decisions).

I'm not sure if you'd consider any or all of these to be railroads, but here's my thinking:

In the first set, #2 and #3 more or less force the adventure. In those cases there either aren't any options (#2) or there aren't any good ones (#3).

I would consider #2 -- where there's "nothing to do" except the undead scenario -- a poorly-structured game, but I see lots of games like #3, and I think that's fair.

In the second category #2 and #3 are difficult to just walk away from -- if you ignore them, there will be unpleasant consequences (your people get slaughtered). This might strongly compel the PC's to take action -- which some people might consider a railroad.

#3 is more like the LoTR scenario: dire threat, only one good way to deal with it.

Based on your answers above, I'm guessing you'd find everything but #1 in both groups to be a railroad... I realize this comes off a bit like a quiz, but if you're still reading at this point, I'd be interested to know if I'm right!

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: David RYou know, my players like solving a mystery. This means interviewing specific people, discovering clues etc. So you could say, the pcs have to push button A and only button A to get to the next level. How they go about pushing button A is up to them...now yeah, I could improv the whole thing and not use a plot, but sometimes having such a free form game leads to a feeling of "there wasn't really a mystery to begin with" ....so am I guilty of railroading ? Maybe . It so depends on how I execute the adventure.

Regards,
David R

Yeah -- if you're unwilling to accept a complex and somewhat restrictive starting situation, you rule out a *lot* of cool adventures.

Also, if you require that the GM explain up front everything that happens, you lose any sense of surprise and a lot of sense of wonder.

I prefer those things -- I don't think of them as being railroads at all... I think of them as what makes games cool!

Cheers,
-E.

In those cases, -E, things are fine until the DM mishandles the situation. If the PC's decide (for whatever reason) that they are going to scram, because this situation is over their heads, then the DM should be prepaired. Players can get creative or not take hooks the DM might consider obvious.

For example, what would happen if:

The characters decided to hop a few towns over and try to get more competant adventurers or enforcement to deal with the issue? Say, petition the local lord to send a contingent of knights with his wizard to deal with the infestation? (Kind of likely, depending on how feudal the game is. After all, it would be the lord's resposibility.)

The characters decide to jet, leaving the town to fend for themselves?

The characters mobilize the village and, with a thousand refugees in tow, head towards the largest city in the region?

The characters throw in with the undead?

The characters try to negotiate with the force behind the undead push?

It's kind of like Lord of the Rings. Some people are going to opt to throw the ring in the volcano. Some are really going to be jonesing to see what the Ring of Power can do when they claim it.

I go so far as to narrate in detail (with no input from the players) what happens between sessions or during in game downtime. Getting to where the real meat and potatoes of my games is.

In my experience...alll RPG games are a railroad. Some GM's are just better at creating the illusion that it isn't

Quote from: TonyLBThat's very sensible.  I don't take issue with that in the same way that I took issue (earlier) with: You're not merely saying that you want the decision to matter, but that you want your decision to matter in a specific way.  You want input on (in this case) how quickly you find the princess.

Other play-groups might legitimately want input on other stuff ("Do we face the fire-demons first, or the ice-demons first?") and not care whether they had any impact on how quickly they found the princess.  For those groups, the moving princess routine wouldn't be a railroad ... yes?

It seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1) Some or all of your players care whether they find the princess now or later. In this instance, lying to them about the power of their choices is dishonest at best, and horrible GMing at worst.

2) None of the players care when (or perhaps even if) the princess is saved. In this case you're falling down on the job as GM if you're putting them into a "save the princess" scenario, and falling down twice as hard if you're artificially stretching it out.

Quote from: Warthurwhich slightly misses the point: if you play around with the rails behind the curtain to avoid things impacting the players' game experience too much, that's fair enough, but you ought to bear in mind that some people will resent even that much GMly manipulation of the gameworld

Maybe. But on the other hand, some players are a bit lost without being told what to do.

Like, in my current campaign, the PCs are running around blowing shit up without much sense of direction. The player most inclined to do this was saying, "well, I didn't know what we were meant to do... okay there was this base, but were we meant to explore it and engage with it, or was it there just for colour?"

"Yes, in the middle of the postapocalyptic wilderness, after you'd passed through a town of corpses, I put two dead cimbers hanging from a bridge which pointed you to the secret back entrance of a giant hidden underground base with mysterious laboratories and makeshift SWAT teams and huge blast doors and an unknown source of power JUST FOR FUCKING COLOUR."

They were asking, "are we missing subtle plot hooks?" I told them, the "plot hooks" are simply like this: there are many things happening in the game world, and all of them have the potential to be very important. If you ignore them, they'll proceed without you. If you get involved, your actions will change them, and as a result, other things happening, too. You are not "meant" to deal with Group A, or help Group B build their wall against Group A, or explore the underground base, or help it or take it down, or check out the mysterious foreigners. You are meant to decide what you're interested in and check it out, and maybe interfere with or help it along.

No railroads. Just a big open fairground with lots of things on it to explore and mess about with.

"Maybe it's there just for colour."

:confused:

The point is that a balance must be found with each group. Some groups will bristle if you even suggest that perhaps dragging a guy down a back alley off a main street in the early morning with everyone going to work, and beating the guy into unconsciousness and tossing him in the dumpster, perhaps it's not a good idea. "How dare you tell us what to do with our characters?!"

Other groups will see a game world with twenty different interesting things happening which their characters all have individual reasons to care about, and say, "oh, maybe it's just for colour, and we're not meant to explore it."

So, what is "railroading", and what is "The Campaign With No Point To It", these are things which are individual to game groups. The GM and group have to find the balance.