Over the years, many things have begun to be labeled as railroading with different levels of accuracy.

One of the more illogical railroading complaints I've seen time and time again is when brand new players rebel against the concept of adventuring in the very first session.  "How dare you expect us to walk into that dungeon!"  Of course, then the game ends, because all RPGs have to start with the railroading assumption that the players will all initially go along with the act of playing the game.

R Talsorian products definitely espoused a railroading methodology.  In Mekton II, the advice recommends the GM come up with a series of "scenes" each scene should have one goal the player characters must accomplish in order to move on to the next scene.  No matter what, the next scene cannot be progressed to without hitting that goal.  The players have all the freedom in the world to do whatever they want, but if they don't address the scene goal, then things aren't ever going to move forward.

In later products a more elaborate version of this advice focusing on "story beats" was presented.  This method made it clear the point was to lead the characters by the nose through something not quite a script, but certainly a rigid outline of what the player characters were going to do.  In each of these "beats" there was a scene goal or event which had to happen before players could move on to the next beat.  Events occurred largely without player input.  For example, an "Ambush" was a story beat and would happen no matter what.

Another way you could look at this is as predictive GMing.  When you know your players, you tend to know what paths they'll follow through your adventure.  So, the whole story beat method is useful in that aspect.

Most of us are fond of the style of railroading where the illusion of choice is presented, but the GM makes the ultimate decision.  In Palladiumbooks's Rifts GM Guide, Kevin Siembieda gives a textbook example of this kind of railroading.  The PCs enter a room where there is a lever.  The players all refuse to pull the lever because something bad will happen.  On the other hand, the GM wants the players to pull the lever.  In this case the recommendation is to always have a GM controlled character in the party so that the lever can be pulled regardless of the PCs wishes.  Therefore the PCs are forced to deal with the consequences of an event they intentionally avoided.  A milder form of the same thing is a method where several options are presented, yet they all yield the same result.  Pick door A, B, or C, but regardless of your choice, I'll use the description for door D.

IMX, these are the most irritating forms of railroading.  They're actually worse than not having a choice at all, because you're literally wasting time on player input which has no bearing on the game.  Oddly, in the various published GM tips which suggest this kind of stuff, the writers always say something like "the players will never notice."  Here's a news flash.  They DO notice.  They ALWAYS notice.  They aren't idiots, as this type of GMing method obviously assumes.

QuoteIMX, these are the most irritating forms of railroading. They're actually worse than not having a choice at all, because you're literally wasting time on player input which has no bearing on the game. Oddly, in the various published GM tips which suggest this kind of stuff, the writers always say something like "the players will never notice." Here's a news flash. They DO notice. They ALWAYS notice. They aren't idiots, as this type of GMing method obviously assumes.

Agreed completely. Either give me choices or give me no choices, but be honest about it.

If we could abandon the railroading metaphor and avoid replacing it with something equally silly (airplanes) or obtuse (new words), then I agree with James on this point:

Either give players choices or give them no choices, but be honest about it.

Pretending their choices matter, when they really don't, is bad.

Telling them straight up -- this is the game / scenario setup, and you have no choices about that... but NOW you get to start making choices about how to deal with that situation, and what happens next.  That's good.

QuoteThat's what I've been saying all along. I'm using railroady as a scale because nobody else seems to agree on a term.

The only one's disagreeing on the definition of railroading that I see in this thread are you, and blakkie, who doesn't count because he's just here to stir up shit.

Ummm... Yeah. I said that. And like I've said all along, suggest a different word if you want. The idea remains the same, and either you're a total moron or you understand the idea I'm talking about. You might disagree, but you at least comprehend. So again, I'll keep using railroad (and sometimes airplane) unless you have another word you'd prefer. For future reference, if I want to use the typical definition of railroad as no choices I'll say extreme railroad or perhaps hard railroad in this thread. Thus, any other time you seem me say railroad you'll know I'm talking about a sliding scale.

That is of course unless you'd like to stop trying to argue against a different meaning of a word then me and suggest a word of your own.

I am a moron.  I do understand your idea.  And it's crap.

Quote from: James McMurrayUmmm... Yeah. I said that. And like I've said all along, suggest a different word if you want. The idea remains the same, and either you're a total moron or you understand the idea I'm talking about. You might disagree, but you at least comprehend. So again, I'll keep using railroad (and sometimes airplane) unless you have another word you'd prefer. For future reference, if I want to use the typical definition of railroad as no choices I'll say extreme railroad or perhaps hard railroad in this thread. Thus, any other time you seem me say railroad you'll know I'm talking about a sliding scale.

That is of course unless you'd like to stop trying to argue against a different meaning of a word then me and suggest a word of your own.

Find your own fucking word.  It's not my job to make up new words for someone else who can't get it through his thick skull that he's using it wrong.

Great. I'll go with airplane.

And in keeping in tone with your post: ur momma!

There are a lot of people who like thinking/talking about RPG theory who seem to be obsessed with inventing/redefining words, instead of using words to communicate clearly with other people.  

Perhaps you could say something like "limited choices" instead of trying to use a word everyone else thinks means something different from what you're talking about, or worse use a word that has nothing to do with what you're talking about and expect people to understand you.

...

Getting back to the original topic of the thread...

The idea that a GM should railroad their players -- meaning they should pretend the player's decisions have an effect on the events in the game, when in fact they don't -- was terrible advice.  It's unfortunate that so many game designers seem to have adopted this bad advice in the 90s.

Even if you want to use RPGs to tell stories, it's still bad advice.

If the story being told in the game requires that the Player Characters go to a certain place, or witness a certain event -- just state that it happens.  Don't try and "steer" them back onto the "right track", just tell them:  "This is where the next section of the game is starting.  Go."

The end result is the same -- the GM gets to tell the pre-scripted story.  The difference is that the player's understand that it's part of the game, and have no illusion that they could alter that part of the game, when in fact they can't.

Don't screw around and try to be sneaky.  Just do it. :greatcthulhu:

Quote from: StuartPerhaps you could say something like "limited choices" instead of trying to use a word everyone else thinks means something different from what you're talking about, or worse use a word that has nothing to do with what you're talking about and expect people to understand you.

Yeah. It was pretty silly of me to expect folks around here to understand me after having only explained it 6 times.

You would have been better to just say what you wanted to say as clearly as possible.  Misusing terms, trying to redefine them, and inventing new terms really didn't have anything to do with the point you were trying to make.

:shrug:

Quote from: James McMurrayYeah. It was pretty silly of me to expect folks around here to understand me after having only explained it 6 times.

YOU ARE TALKING SHIT YOU RETARDED NONCE! ITS NOT EVEN A FUCKING AEROPLANE YOU DUMB SHIT! ITS A LOCATION! ITS ADVENTURE INDEPENDENT YOU STUPID, STUPID LITTLE MAN. SHUT THE FUCK UP. YOU ARE PERSONALLY MAKING THE INTERNET A DUMBER PLACE.

Ima just ignore the last hundred or two hundred posts about what is or is not railroading/airplaning/Deimoslogosing (or whatever!).  

All this shit advice, all those games I loved and never had a problem with...


I guess it's good I don't fucking read GM advice anymore! Maybe my critical thinking skills are broken, maybe they are ramped up so high I never notice things that just don't fucking work!  I've owned Mekton, all the versions of it. I love R.Talsorian stuff (mostly) and Palladium Stuff... and I've never seen the shitty railroady 'player choices don't matter' stuff. Never.

Of course, I've been the one stuck GMing since I learned the damn hobby, and I've always been the 'wing it' sort.   I still think Champion's big list of 'do not's' was the best fucking GM advice ever written.  But what do I know? I'm six inches tall and yellow!:cool:

I just realized that your Pikachu userpic is clearly spanking itself!!

Quote from: Abyssal MawI just realized that your Pikachu userpic is clearly spanking itself!!

Just now?


Clearly you have an issue with your critical reasoning facilties!