Quote from: jrientsI'm afraid further communication in this thread is going to be tough, since noone seems to be able to agree what constitutes 'railroading', what is or is not a 'dungeon' and now we've somehow drug 'story' into the mix as well.  I don't want to talk about 'story'.

This thread long since entered Stupidville.  I don't see the point anymore.

Terminology is a dangerous thing. However, I think Jrients, Settembrini, Stuart, (me).. and possibly a few others all seem to be talking about the same thing.

Railroading is a style of GMing. THAT is the discussion.

A dungeon or a dungeon crawl under your definition is just a place.
Not a style or way to GM. And you could certainly have railroading take place anywhere. In space, in a dungeon, in a town full of adulterous mormons.. anywhere.

BUT. The assumption is we're still all talking about ways to game master. So when I talk about dungeon adventuring, I'm talking about the way to moderate that as a GM. That involves a map and encounters. The 3.0 DMG calls this a "Site based adventure", and specifies that it doesn't have to be a dungeon or below ground either. Having a map and encounters does NOT create or facilitate any railroading in any way. It does the opposite.

So when I say "it could be a forest or a town", I swear, I totally mean it. Because we're really not talking about a place, we're talking about a style and a method.

The method I am talking about is one in which

1) the GM describes the location.

2) the players respond with what they want to do. This could be which exit they take, or how they want to interact with whomever or whatever is in the area. But the GM has no interest in the players taking any particular action...Because there's no planned goal.

Yes, this thread has gotten stupid. I suspect it's because there is an intentional effort to obfuscate the real issue. Perhaps we need to open up a fresh thread about railroading.

Ah, an attempt at sanity.  Thanks Abyssal Maw.

Abyssal Maw makes exactly the point I was groping towards.

I think he's made it several times--and each time I'm nodding my head in agreement--but maybe this time will "take".

Quote from: Abyssal MawI suspect it's because there is an intentional effort to obfuscate the real issue. Perhaps we need to open up a fresh thread about railroading.

LOL! No really. I actually laughed out loud at that one. Bravo sir!

What you're saying makes sense. But it's not what blakkie and I are discussing. You can repeat it all you want but it's just a change of the current subject.

You're talking about 100% railroading. blakkie and I are talking about degrees of railroading, some of which is enforced by standard dungeon designs. I suppose you're free to refuse to discuss that (as you've done for several pages now) but at least don't try and couch it in terms that make it look like you are. LOL

So what's your point, James?

Okay, you've got a compact, delimited scenario. On one level, you must assume the PC's are motivated to engage it, or the scenario doesn't come off. You can call that "railroading" if you like, but of course the same applies to any scenario design. Either the motivation comes from the player-characters in the larger context of the campaign, or it has to be negotiated somehow between the players and GM, as Stuart implied upthread in his caravan example. (Another approach might simply be to say, "Folks, this scenario requires you to show up in Mudtown, get to know each other, and look for work as caravan guards. Please tell me how that happens.")

Once you're "in" the scenario, though, there's a huge difference between the "How to wing it" essay and the "site-based" approach. John Kim catalogued a few other approaches over on his livejournal (link). Some of these approaches allow the player-characters to have a real effect on the path, pacing, and outcome of the scenario. Others subvert and nullify the effect of PC's. If you want to nitpick you can talk about degrees, but it's obvious that the trailblazing/illusionist branch (as jhkim calls them) is designed to minimize the impact of PC decisions. One can also assert that constraints such as walls or physics or assumptions about human nature also limit the players, but that's perverse, frankly.

My point has been stated and restated several times. The most recent one was on page 16 (when viewed at the default pages per thread). Since I'm tired of typing things that aren't read, I'll let you go find it if you're really curious. Folks tend to pay more attention if they have to work for something.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think he's made it several times--and each time I'm nodding my head in agreement--but maybe this time will "take".

Indeed he has, and it won't.  

This is a gorram pointless thread.

Yep, because one side is talking about one topic and the other side another. Makes it really hard to communicate.

James, your point is that in a dungeon the choice is to: 1) proceed, or 2) leave.

What about these choices:
* Try the rickety rope bridge
* Swim across the underground river
* Ring the bell for the ferryman
* Walk down the river bank
* Go back

I'm pretty sure those are choices from a classic dungeon -- actually the First Fighting Fantasy book: The Warlock of Firetop Mountain.  However, a similar set of choices could appear in a standard "dungeon", and nicely demonstrate the non-railroading nature of genre.

In a railroaded adventure the players would HAVE TO ring the bell for the Ferryman, because he's an "important NPC" the players are "supposed to talk to".

Do we need to switch to using blakkie's made up word for this conversation to continue? If you'd like to suggest a word we can use for "constrained choices" instead, that would be great, as it seems the word railroad is going to fail us no matter how many times I try to explain how I'm using it.

You said your point was clearly stated on page 16...

Quote from: James on page 16Meaningful choices like "jump through the hoops or leave" perhaps. I'm at work right now, but when I get a chance I'll dig out some old Gygax modules (and others). The one that leaps immediately to mind is Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth (is that what you're calling "The Caves"?). In that one you have to go through a set of teleporters to reach your goal. No "meaningful choices" other than "do I step in this corridor, fully expecting to be teleported to gods know where, or do I leave and give up on my search for the most valued treasure of an ancient wizard?" Sure, you can choose which order you ride the teleporters in, but it's a null choice since you don't actually know where they're going.

There's a similar situation in Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure but I can't recall ofhhand what the key/teleporter/portal necessary to reach the demon was. Also in the Tomb of Horrors, where there was only a single route to the demilich's lair. You either find that route, which will typically require searching the entire dungeon top to bottom because of ho it's hidden, or you leave. No "meaningful choices." Just "do it or don't do it."

(Emphasis mine)

Any situation is limited in the number of choices you have by things like: resources, genre, physics, etc.  This is true of dungeons, murder mysteries, and dogs in vineyards.

Edit:  Sorry if I've grabbed the wrong quote... but this seemed to be your main argument from page 16...

Quote from: James McMurrayDungeons don't add any more freedom than plotlines do.

This is where the argument started.

Suppose we go back, erase the word "dungeon", and substitute "site-based adventure".

Once you get the "buy-in" to embark on the adventure, a site-based adventure isn't railroady. Yes, it's delimited, so that you can accidentally or deliberately leave the adventure, but within the adventure, the PCs' actions are significant. "Do I go north or south?" affects both what happens next and, potentially, the ultimate outcome. I may have information that helps me decide which direction I want to go in to achieve certain outcomes. In the style of play described by the Nephew essay, the connection between information, action, and outcome is broken. You may not feel railroaded if you want the outcome that the plot is designed to lead to, but your actual impact on the scenario is illusory.

Quote from: James McMurrayDo we need to switch to using blakkie's made up word for this conversation to continue?

No, because Blakkie is playing around and doesn't really have a point.

QuoteIf you'd like to suggest a word we can use for "constrained choices" instead, that would be great, as it seems the word railroad is going to fail us no matter how many times I try to explain how I'm using it.

It's not "constrained choices" that are a problem with the GMing style advocated in the Nephew essay. It's false choices.