QuoteOk, firstly a premise is not a railroad. If a GM pitches to me that he is running a game in which we are playing members of the French resistance during WW2, it is not a railroad if the game then is about that. It's a premise.

I was thinking more along the lines of a series of "Episodes", like you might get in a Videogame like Starcraft.  Each episode gives you a premise, and from there you get to start making decisions.  However, after the episode ends there is a new/updated premise given to you before the start of the next episode.

You could consider the chain of premises to be "railroading" the overall narrative of the game towards a pre-determined goal.  However, since it's very clear to the players which parts of the game they have control over and which they do not, I think this is a better aproach compared to the advice in the original article.

Quote from: StuartI was thinking more along the lines of a series of "Episodes", like you might get in a Videogame like Starcraft.  Each episode gives you a premise, and from there you get to start making decisions.  However, after the episode ends there is a new/updated premise given to you before the start of the next episode.

You could consider the chain of premises to be "railroading" the overall narrative of the game towards a pre-determined goal.  However, since it's very clear to the players which parts of the game they have control over and which they do not, I think this is a better aproach compared to the advice in the original article.

I don't see that as railroading so much as having a scenario.  The mere presence of a scenario is not in and of itself railroading.

No, but it is constraint of choices. How much constraint depends on the GM's ability to wing it. Not necessarily a bad thing of course, but constraint nonetheless.

Quote from: James McMurrayNo, but it is constraint of choices. How much constraint depends on the GM's ability to wing it. Not necessarily a bad thing of course, but constraint nonetheless.

Sure, but in a sense the moment you do anything in an rpg you constrain choices.  If I as a player am rude to the mayor of the town we are visiting I constrain the choices of the other players, to make any choice is to constrain others.

QuoteI don't see that as railroading so much as having a scenario. The mere presence of a scenario is not in and of itself railroading.

Let's agree that these silly terms do so little to help us discuss how to make our games better.

QuoteSure, but in a sense the moment you do anything in an rpg you constrain choices. If I as a player am rude to the mayor of the town we are visiting I constrain the choices of the other players, to make any choice is to constrain others.

I think we're all agreeing now, just the terminology is variable from person to person.  I said virtually the same thing about 50 pages back or something.

Quote from: StuartI think we're all agreeing now, just the terminology is variable from person to person.  I said virtually the same thing about 50 pages back or something.

We're all agreeing?

Clearly I arrived in this thread too late.

Quote from: BalbinusSure, but in a sense the moment you do anything in an rpg you constrain choices.  If I as a player am rude to the mayor of the town we are visiting I constrain the choices of the other players, to make any choice is to constrain others.

That doesn't constrain your choices. It modifies the results, and makes some choices (like asking the mayor for help) silly, but it doesn't actually remove the choice to ask.

The only thing I think remaining in disagreement is the merits of "Illusionsim".  That is this specific situation:

There are two doors.  Rather than lead to either encounter X or encounter Y, whichever one the players choose to open, you're still going to give them encounter X.

Whatever word you want to use to describe that technique -- I think it's bad, while RedFox thinks it's good.

Otherwise, I think we're all more or less on the same page now.

Quote from: BalbinusRedFox, as a matter of jargon Stuart is correct, illusionism is railroading with the illusion of choice, rather than just naked and obvious railroading.  That's kind of what the term means.

That doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing, but he is right in how he's using these terms.

Alright...  I guess I just don't like the prejudicial connotation of the term.  Like calling pro wrestling "fake sports."  Well, yeah but...

QuoteAlright... I guess I just don't like the prejudicial connotation of the term. Like calling pro wrestling "fake sports." Well, yeah but...

Haha. Yes, that's exactly right!

If you guys are having fun with it, awesome.  But it is what it is... and NOT what it's not.

Illusionism can be a subset of railroading, but it can also be something else.

A long time ago, I read some RPG tip about how to run a murder mystery setting.  First, you create the crime.  Then you create some random suspects.  You finish up by creating some random clues.  Not once in this process do you decide on the killer, the motive, or the specifics of the crime.  Then you start the game and let the players investigate.

The idea is that players will create their own connections for clues and motivations for the suspects to have committed the crime.  As a GM, you just sit there and nod knowingly and watch the show.  The players recreate the crime you never decided on the specifics of, assign significance to clues which had none, and finger a suspect who you never labeled as the culprit.  And if they've been entertaining, they're successful.

It is a bit of railroading in the way that all roads lead to the killer, but there are a lot of different roads and intersections.

Quote from: GabrielIt is a bit of railroading in the way that all roads lead to the killer, but there are a lot of different roads and intersections.

Yeah that's what I've been talking about this whole time.  Thank you.

Quote from: RedFoxYeah that's what I've been talking about this whole time.  Thank you.

Well, I did try to touch on that earlier with the door thing, asking if the two doors both led directly to "encounter X" or if they both led to different paths to "encounter X."  Your indirect answer seemed to be that both doors opened straight to the same thing (the mythical Encounter X).

Someone needs to write a game named that.  Encounter X is just a cool name.  

Quote from: RedFoxYeah that's what I've been talking about this whole time.  Thank you.

This is different than your earlier examples where you know what you want to happen and all roads lead there. In that one it would be that the killer is Joe Schmoe, and all investigative methods find him eventually. In the example Gabriel gave, the killer could be anyone and it's up to the players to decide (unknowingly) who that is.

Which method do you actually use? Everthing you've said so far has indicated to me that you use the first one (GM decides where all roads end).