Quote from: Elliot WilenI still think it's a good idea to try to put expectations out there before beginning play. Even if people don't use those as a screening device, it can help them understand what's going on and avoid unpleasant surprises.

I'd like to hear that conversation. Since there's no real definition of railroading, there's a whole lot of grey area to contend with. I once overheard a conversation between two players (it may have been about a  one off I ran for some friends and acquantances) in which one player said that convincing NPCs could be considered railroading tools and that he felt that my adventure used such tools :raise:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SpikeWell, E, if you would simply Apply SMRG criteria to your situation you would realize that it is not railroading at all... provided the GM does nothing to prevent the players from reacting however they chose to the rise of the undead in the village.

they can, in fact, flee. If he puts unreasonable obstacles in their path, it's covert railroading. If he simply says 'you can't flee' then it's overt.

If you allow them to attempt to make allies of the Necromancer it's not railroading, though you don't have to let them succeed at it either. Simply not allowing them to make the attempt, or dismissing very valid arguments they may make for the alliance based simply on your distaste for the idea is railroading. Deciding the necromancer only wants perfectly obeident (eg Undead) allies and won't listen is not.  they still get to make the attempt, it's just doomed to failure for reasonable reasons.

Yes, you still need to make value judgements about reasonable opposition, but having undead rise is not inherently railroady.


On the other hand, if they had sought out and killed all the necromancers, blessed or burned all the bodies in the graveyard and otherwise taken steps to prevent any undead risings adn there was STILL an uprising... that is covert railroading, the PC's actions proved to have no affect on the course of the game.

I agree with your model (I think -- I read it quickly and it looked sound to me).

Again -- that's not what I see the OP as calling for.

But if someone calls for a vote on the SMRG, I think I'm with you.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JimBobOzMaybe. 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."

Well, it makes for a nice story but isn't quite the way things were phrased. This is what was actually said (emphasis added);
 
I definitely wanted to find out more about The Facility... but it just
seemed kinda pointless by the time all the dust (or cordite) settled,
we sorta blew our chances. Sure, we might get to talk to the
scientists again in the future, but they are going to be much more
circumspect. Or am I misinterpreting things? Maybe The Facility was
never meant to be anything more than a point of interest (to be
investigated later) and the REAL mystery still remains with the
American ship that's crashed on the coast??
 
So, no, we didn't think it was "JUST FOR FUCKING COLOUR". The way you say that makes the group sound like a bunch of morons (or is it just me that's the moron, given as it was my observation?).
 

QuoteThey 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.

The thing is, this is much like real life. In the real world there are things happening and all of them have the potential to be very important. But 99% of us don't get involved. We continue to lead our dreary, boring lives.
 
So what makes roleplaying different? IMHO, there are three major differences;
 
1. It's only a game. In real life, you're less inclined to take risks. But in a game, playing a make believe character, you'll be more inclined to get engaged in the action and intrigue. This is the D&D approach... where the characters are usually adventurers; a special breed that always responds to danger, volunteers first for any dangerous missions and dares to explore the depths of zombie-filled dungeons rather than retire for the quiet life tilling fields or selling turnips. It's a fun approach, but doesn't always lead to the most realistic roleplaying experience.
 
2. The characters are special. This is the approach used in most superhero games - the characters are marked by some sort of special quality such super powers or something similar and being special makes them more inclined to get drawn into the events of their environment. Again, a fun approach but doesn't work for all games.
 
3. The events of the world intersect with the motivations of the characters. Because it's not just enough to have interesting things happening in the game world. The characters need to be drawn (but not forced) into those events.
 
In the example you cited, the group successfully made their way through the secret back entrance; we realised it was suspicious that the facility had it's own (unknown) power source; and we were pretty confident the scientists were responsible for building biological weapons. All very interesting stuff.
 
But the main objective of the group was to investigate a US military ship further to the south. The underground facility didn't seem to have much part in helping us to achieve our objective... the scientists pretty much stonewalled all our questions, and had no need (or desire) for any help we might have been able offer. So of course the group would shrug their shoulders, say "That's odd" and move on.
 
It's like the proverbial black box. There might be something really interesting in the box, but without a readily apparent way to open the box most people will look at it, spend a few minutes pondering it's mysteries and then put it down. Give someone a box with levers, buttons, dials and flashing lights, then most people are going to stop and try and figure out what everything does. And as long as you don't force them to push a button, then it isn't railroading.

Quote from: David RI'd like to hear that conversation. Since there's no real definition of railroading, there's a whole lot of grey area to contend with.

When we know some word is fraught with more emotion than clarity, I think it's best to set it aside, or to make an effort to understand the other party's use of the word.

(BTW, what do you mean by "convincing NPCs"?)

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWell, it makes for a nice story but isn't quite the way things were phrased.

It was just an example to demonstrate that between the extremes of railroading and complete freedom, there's a lot of middle ground, and the GM and group have to find that balance, find what everyone's comfortable with.

That's a difficult balance to find, and that I'm slow to find it just means I'm a crap GM. I am, however, working on it.

Quote from: Tyberious Funkthe scientists pretty much stonewalled all our questions,

Well, the party as a whole had just forced their way into the place, shot at them and kicked them in the nads. That generally makes people less chatty

Quote from: Tyberious FunkGive someone a box with levers, buttons, dials and flashing lights, then most people are going to stop and try and figure out what everything does.

Or they might step back, pull out their pistol, and blow a fucking big hole in the side of the box so they have a look inside

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you put it like that, then almost every player in existence is going to say, "okay," and play. I'm not saying that a GM shouldn't lay out their preferences of railroady vs open or any other game elements we can think of. I'm just saying that players may nod enthusiastically when really they don't think it's a good idea, because they want to play, they want to fit into the group. So laying it all out doesn't guarantee everyone's going to be happy.

Not in my experience, but my local gaming community is healthy enough that people can take or leave particular campaigns: it's not a "Play in X's campaign, or sit around alone because nobody else is running anything" situation. I'm very much a believer in the idea that GMs should deliver, more or less, the sort of game they initially advertise to people; you're only betraying the people who did pay attention to what you had to say at game start if you make a u-turn, after all, and I have little sympathy for people who order chocolate ice cream when what they want is vanilla.

Your post makes some good points, but I think they are points which work a lot better in (for want of a better phrase) gaming-sparse environments as opposed to gaming-rich areas.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhen we know some word is fraught with more emotion than clarity, I think it's best to set it aside, or to make an effort to understand the other party's use of the word.

True. But I think because the word is fraught with more emotion than clarity (nicely put Elliot) and esp because gaming is a social activity, the best way to find out if a GM is railroading according to whatever definition one (you) may have, is to actually play in a game. I don't really think that having a conversation before hand is particularly productive.

Quote(BTW, what do you mean by "convincing NPCs"?)

Well from what I remember (and this is second hand info BTW) this player thought that some npcs were emphasized too much whilst others suddenly lost their influence in the game, leading this player to feel as though his character was being herded into a predetermined course of action.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: WarthurNot in my experience, but my local gaming community is healthy enough that people can take or leave particular campaigns [...]

Your post makes some good points, but I think they are points which work a lot better in (for want of a better phrase) gaming-sparse environments as opposed to gaming-rich areas.

To be honest, my town is pretty gaming-rich. But people don't perceive it as gaming-rich. For example, due to a fuck-up of mine, I lost three of four players in a game group implosion. I was told that I would be bereft of players for some time. The following week I had two new players, the week after, a third, and I had to turn away two others.

That's not because I'm a brilliant GM, or because no-one else will run games - it's just that there are a lot of gamers out there wanting to game, and a lot of non-gamers who'd like to give it a go.

But people don't feel that there are a lot of games and gamers out there. It's very "now or never!"

That aside, even when gamers feel there are oodles of other gamers and groups out there, they often feel a sense of obligation to the current group. "Well I'm here now, and said I'd be here next week, may as well make the best of it..." People don't usually treat one another as disposable like kleenex, so they'll go through the things I described above.


Sometimes the first few game sessions can be like a first date. "You like that stuff? Really? Me, too! Wow we are so alike and will get along so well..." It's just natural and human to want to get along, and not rock the boat.  

Again, it doesn't mean that GMs and players describing their preferences is pointless. I've always been one to recommend it, people talking about what they like. But you have to bear in mind that when people are new to each-other, or not very outgoing or outspoken, they'll often tend to say "yes" when they mean, "hmm, I dunno, maybe," or "probably not but I'll try", and so on. That's just how groups are when they're forming. In time, people become more comfortable with each-other, and start saying more cearly - if they can - what they enjoy and want - if they know.

Quote from: JimBobOzTo be honest, my town is pretty gaming-rich. But people don't perceive it as gaming-rich. For example, due to a fuck-up of mine, I lost three of four players in a game group implosion. I was told that I would be bereft of players for some time. The following week I had two new players, the week after, a third, and I had to turn away two others.

That's not because I'm a brilliant GM, or because no-one else will run games - it's just that there are a lot of gamers out there wanting to game, and a lot of non-gamers who'd like to give it a go.

Interesting. Maybe the special thing about my local scene isn't just that it's gaming-rich, it's also GM-rich. At least half the people participating are just has happy to run their own games as they are to play in other peoples'.

How about a story telling about railroading in the Nile?  All Ghost & the Darkness style.

Quote from: David RTrue. But I think because the word is fraught with more emotion than clarity (nicely put Elliot) and esp because gaming is a social activity, the best way to find out if a GM is railroading according to whatever definition one (you) may have, is to actually play in a game. I don't really think that having a conversation before hand is particularly productive.

I guess I can only speculate since I haven't had too many of those conversations myself. But as I've played games with other folks and talked about them, I think I've picked up on a few common assumptions out there, so I have a sense of which ones I might need to warn people about carrying into certain games that I might run.

And conversely, just going in and playing in a game is problematic, too, since we're talking about stuff that's often done secretly. Sometimes it's an open secret (the players know the GM will manipulate things sometimes, but they don't know when exactly), other times it's not even acknowledged at all. Either way, the players may never really know where they stand.

I've thought from time to time that it might be a good idea to try a one-shot game "open-handed"--the GM doesn't necessarily give away all the prep, but whenever there's a need to fall back on improvisation in any way, the GM should reveal as much and either give the rationale for what happens next, or ask the players to suggest what they would do if they were GMing. Sort of like a GMing workshop, which would also help get everyone on the same wavelength about the GMing aesthetics, responsibilities, and prerogratives.

QuoteWell from what I remember (and this is second hand info BTW) this player thought that some npcs were emphasized too much whilst others suddenly lost their influence in the game, leading this player to feel as though his character was being herded into a predetermined course of action.

Ah, I think I sort of understand what he was saying, and he might have a point, but at third remove it's hard to see it clearly.

Quote from: WarthurInteresting. Maybe the special thing about my local scene isn't just that it's gaming-rich, it's also GM-rich. At least half the people participating are just has happy to run their own games as they are to play in other peoples'.

That's possible, too.

But I think the most important is the sense of obligation many people feel towards others when they've made even the most tentative of commitments, and after that the perception of how gaming (or GM)-rich or gaming (or GM)-poor the area is.

Most people, if they come back after the first session, don't simply get up and go in the middle of a session when they're pissed off. They stay to the end of the session, and if they quit, they quit between sessions. But usually they don't quit at all, and hang on in there. While hanging on, they may or may not actually do anything constructive to make the game better - but they hang on. They say things like, "it's not a crap game, it just feels a little futile sometimes." And they hang on.

Again, this is not to say that people clearly communicating their desires is futile. It's not. Simply that a lot of people aren't used to that, and are scared of rocking the boat. It takes time for people to have the confidence to speak up, and to listen - it takes confidence to listen, too, because they may say something you won't like...!

More communication is better than less communication. By itself it won't solve anything, but it makes finding solutions a lot easier.

In terms of communicating:

I think railroading -- as a term -- is best used as a subjective and negative one. Talking about railroading being "okay" is, counter intuitive and likely problematic (I understand that the OP doesn't feel that way. Some people believe "rape" could be used as a neutral term. I'd advise against such usages).

And I think trying to find hard criteria for it is counterproductive: if someone feels railroaded it's an issue that should be dealt with, regardless of whether it fits some canonical definition.

I also think that jargon actively impedes discussion about gaming preferences or styles: if I want to know how someone GM's I might ask them to describe their GMing style (same with player agendas). I don't think asking someone if they self-identify as a railroader would be helpful in most situations.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd conversely, just going in and playing in a game is problematic, too, since we're talking about stuff that's often done secretly. Sometimes it's an open secret (the players know the GM will manipulate things sometimes, but they don't know when exactly), other times it's not even acknowledged at all. Either way, the players may never really know where they stand.

Elliot, I gotta say I'm pretty sceptical when it comes to rpg issues such as railroading, player deprotaganization etc. There's a fine line between manipulation and judgement call and the two often get conflated. I'm pretty sure that if players are having fun then what goes on behind the scenes becomes irrelevent. It's only when there's a very blantant dsconnect between what the players want/expect and what the GM gives them, when the trouble starts. I admit this last sentence is pretty dodgy.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RElliot, I gotta say I'm pretty sceptical when it comes to rpg issues such as railroading, player deprotaganization etc. There's a fine line between manipulation and judgement call and the two often get conflated. I'm pretty sure that if players are having fun then what goes on behind the scenes becomes irrelevent. It's only when there's a very blantant dsconnect between what the players want/expect and what the GM gives them, when the trouble starts. I admit this last sentence is pretty dodgy.

Regards,
David R

Frankly, I am inclined to wonder how in the holy hell you'd ever find a game, if what the GM does behind the screen is so all-fired important.

I mean, for craps sake, when I've run games, basically everything, even NPC stats is all in my head as it is, and I have no qualms whatsoever about tweaking any or all of what I do have as fairly certain if it'll make for a more enjoyable game.  

It's just one of the basic skills of GMing, and one of the basic assumptions of GMing, that what the GM has planned is known only to him, and the GM must be flexibile enough to change his plans to suit what the PCs are doing in game and what would be most fun for everyone involved, including what would be fun for the GM.

Really, this sort of anti-GM paranoia just bugs the shit out of me.  The GM is a player too, you know, and if he isn't allowed to have fun, why the fuck should he even bother to run a game for a bunch of ungrateful players?