PDA

View Full Version : GMing help - Railroad adventure without railroadING



Malacode
2010-08-09, 07:35 AM
I have this idea for a game that I'd really like to try, but plot-wise, it's pretty restrictive. The players aren't in control at any point. They're mercenaries hired to go on a job and, by the very nature of the job, they can't decide to go somewhere else and have fun. There's also a limited cast of characters, some of whom are far more powerful than the players and aren't afraid to show it, but I don't want them to turn ito the worst kind of DMPCs... In the end, it's going to be about the story, and them learning about and coming to care for key NPCs.

So, uh... Any ideas on how to run a restricting, plot driven game in which the players have very little control?

The Glyphstone
2010-08-09, 07:41 AM
They're hired to go on a job. Do your best to ensure that they have multiple ways that they can complete said job.

Knaight
2010-08-09, 07:43 AM
I would advise not doing this, but if you have to, keep as much open as possible. Sure, they are mercenaries, but they get general objectives that they can accomplish as they wish, rather than specific orders. You want a big job with lots of ways to accomplish it, that can also allow for the PCs getting personal stuff done on the side, e.g. collapse a kingdom.

hamishspence
2010-08-09, 07:46 AM
Play in Eberron- and have to escort the NPCs across the continent by lightning rail :smallamused:

Psyx
2010-08-09, 07:50 AM
I tend to run quite a few major campaigns as 'you do what you're told' type games with powerful NPCs issuing orders. It doesn't have to be too restrictive, so long as you don't try to tell your players HOW to do the job(s).
And you need to let them act on their own initiative sometimes by way of tossing in a side-quest or two that they can choose to take or ignore.


Last few campaigns:

Players as assorted samurai and hangers-on, obeying the whims of their lord and his spy-master.

Players as Acolytes of the Inquisition in 40k.

Players as Greek heroes, sent on a quest by their king.

Players as modern-day mercenaries/detectives, given a range of paying jobs as part of a legitimate company, working in and around Miami.

W3bDragon
2010-08-09, 07:52 AM
Find difficult but boring tasks to do for the higher level NPCs, so they don't steal the spotlight from the players.

For example, goblin forces coming to attack 3 villages. DMPC1 goes to village 1 and 2 and evacuates everyone to village 3, which is more defensible. DMPC2 puts up strategic road blocks to cut off most alternative routes for the goblin force, herding them in a specific direction. The PCs, however, are the ones that actually face the goblin force.

Fouredged Sword
2010-08-09, 07:53 AM
First step is to talk to your players and tell them that there is a plot you would like to run, but it may be a little railroady. Tell them is is going to be a mision based mercenary game that they will not be the bigest fish in the pond. If they are interested, then you are good to go.

Then look at your setup. It looks good to me. A mercenary company gives you a lot of control over what they do, as you control the offered jobs. It may be a good idea to give them some superficial choices that effect small things. Let them control aspects of each mission, choseing the hows and whens if you can. This will let them choose thier tactics.

Also if you have a small group of characters, then do them justice. A small set of well developed complete characters is better than an army of faceless mooks. If they are focused out of a town, then make townsfolk who interact with them commonly have names and faces, and more importantly an opinion of the characters. Let the characters actions and die rolls effect those opinions.

Then go forth and have fun.

EDIT : yes, put the DMPC's in another room. Let them do important things that just so happen to be away from the main party. It makes sense as well. The party of adventurers is a step up from the rank and file troops, and thus is needed to be somewhere important and they are powerful enough to not need babysitting. Give the DMPC a pile of low level mooks for troops and let them be a frontal attack to pull the defences away from the BBEG while the party goes in the side entrence. In most combat it makes little sense to place all your strength in a single point. There are better tactics out there.

Aroka
2010-08-09, 08:00 AM
I have this idea for a game that I'd really like to try, but plot-wise, it's pretty restrictive. The players aren't in control at any point. They're mercenaries hired to go on a job and, by the very nature of the job, they can't decide to go somewhere else and have fun.

That's all fine. That's just the world being the world. If the players like the sound of it, there's no problem.


There's also a limited cast of characters, some of whom are far more powerful than the players and aren't afraid to show it, but I don't want them to turn ito the worst kind of DMPCs...

This is already risky. If the PCs' actions can't affect things (like NPCs), what's the point of having the PCs there?


In the end, it's going to be about the story, and them learning about and coming to care for key NPCs.

There lies the danger. You've got your story and your key NPCs and you already care about them, and if you try to protect either or force them on the PCs you're going to railroad and be a bad GM.


As a one-off (possibly multiple-session) adventure, this sounds like a fine idea. You go do X, and you watch a story unravel. Just make sure you don't start twisting and bending and fighting to keep the PCs from derailing your story, because that's the entire point of having the PCs there - to have them change what you've already decided would happen without their involvement. As a campaign, it's obviously not sustainable without railroading.

Kylarra
2010-08-09, 08:18 AM
In the end, it's going to be about the story, and them learning about and coming to care for key NPCs.You're just going to have to be up front with your players and see if that's what they're interested in playing, if so, then you're golden. If not, shelve this idea for another day/group/whatever.




So, uh... Any ideas on how to run a restricting, plot driven game in which the players have very little control?Write a novel.

KiltedGrappler
2010-08-09, 08:22 AM
It sounds like you want to write a short story or book instead of run an RPG. Forcing your players to stay on the tracks and taking away all free will is never a good idea, and the harder you try to make them care about and like the NPCs, the less they'll be inclined to.

My suggestion would be to either rework it so that they aren't slaves to the plot and depend on the NPCs for everything, or fire up Microsoft Word and write your story.

Tengu_temp
2010-08-09, 08:45 AM
I don't see anything wrong with this idea - it's pretty close to how I like to DM, in fact. Wide open sandbox games are overrated - more often than not, they are about the players wandering the game world more or less randomly and doing things that seem to have no consequence in the long run. I'd rather play a game with a strong plot and a well-established objective.

Like Glyphstone said, make sure that the players have multiple ways of handling their mission. Make sure that the actions have consequences, and modify the plot according to what the PCs did. Don't let the NPCs steal the spotlight - generally it's best to split tasks and let PCs do one thing (the more important and flashy one!) and NPCs the other. If a strong NPC absolutely has to participate in the same battle as the PCs, make sure it's an NPC they like.

valadil
2010-08-09, 09:26 AM
TBH, it sounds like you're asking permission to run a railroad. Don't ask the forums, ask the players. Tell them the kind of game they're getting into. Don't be so vague about what their orders will be. And if they're interested, suggest that they play characters who will go along with this particular plot.

Vantharion
2010-08-09, 09:55 AM
Players as modern-day mercenaries/detectives, given a range of paying jobs as part of a legitimate company, working in and around Miami.

All I can think of is Burn Notice... glorious glorious Burn Notice...


Find difficult but boring tasks to do for the higher level NPCs, so they don't steal the spotlight from the players.

For example, goblin forces coming to attack 3 villages. DMPC1 goes to village 1 and 2 and evacuates everyone to village 3, which is more defensible. DMPC2 puts up strategic road blocks to cut off most alternative routes for the goblin force, herding them in a specific direction. The PCs, however, are the ones that actually face the goblin force.

-This poster is intelligent, you should listen to him.
Then again the converse of this is true as well, don't let them ALWAYS think they're the biggest and baddest, have the high level NPCs save their butts or do something important now and again so they act like the players in DM of the rings (Towards gandalf).
If you want, have the higher level NPCs leave the players out to dry once, aka, fail to 'Go set up the routing goblin blockade'.

Drascin
2010-08-09, 10:08 AM
I have this idea for a game that I'd really like to try, but plot-wise, it's pretty restrictive. The players aren't in control at any point. They're mercenaries hired to go on a job and, by the very nature of the job, they can't decide to go somewhere else and have fun. There's also a limited cast of characters, some of whom are far more powerful than the players and aren't afraid to show it, but I don't want them to turn ito the worst kind of DMPCs... In the end, it's going to be about the story, and them learning about and coming to care for key NPCs.

So, uh... Any ideas on how to run a restricting, plot driven game in which the players have very little control?

The risk here, as I see it, is less the plot itself (because "plot with fixed objectives" is plenty fine as long as you leave the players freedom in how to go about achieving them, after all. For example, Boss says bridge X needs to go out of order for Sunday to cut the enemy's supplies? No problem! But it should be the players deciding whether to steal explosives and plant them, cut the supports, sabotage it so it falls when the army goes through, curse it with spectres so the supply caravans are too terrified to go through, or whatever :smalltongue:)... and more the NPCs as you describe them.

Remember, never let the NPCs steal the spotlight from your players. While the NPCs may be important players in the world, this particular story is the POV of the Player Characters, and so should focus on them while NPCs go around doing other stuff in the background.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-09, 10:27 AM
I have this idea for a game that I'd really like to try, but plot-wise, it's pretty restrictive. The players aren't in control at any point. They're mercenaries hired to go on a job and, by the very nature of the job, they can't decide to go somewhere else and have fun.

Mercernaries/"do this job" are a pretty commonly used trope in roleplaying. Makes an easy way to get the party together, and start them off on the mission.

This isn't really a problem, so long as the players are ok with the idea of working for someone. Expect them to take a pretty loose view of the jobs, though. Generally, giving them a goal, and leaving the means entirely up to them is best. Gives them the freedom they need to avoid being railroaded, while also giving them an obvious plot hook.

Also, think about what happens if your players just say no to a job, or


There's also a limited cast of characters, some of whom are far more powerful than the players and aren't afraid to show it, but I don't want them to turn ito the worst kind of DMPCs... In the end, it's going to be about the story, and them learning about and coming to care for key NPCs.

This is generally best avoided. Players vary, with some enjoying RPing with detailed NPCs, and some struggling to remember even the most basic of NPC names. A few treat them as nothing more than vending machines to fulfill their desires. However, even at the extreme rp-friendly end of things, players spend more time and attention on their characters than on NPCs.

Too much focus on the NPCs and the story, especially when you have vastly more powerful NPCs than PCs, tends to make the players feel like they're merely watching from the sidelines, not participating. Avoid this. Rethink why you focus on the NPCs, and be aware that there is no way to force them to care about specific NPCs the way you do. A good roleplaying game involves presenting the players with interesting choices, not just having them watch a story unfold.

Psyx
2010-08-09, 10:40 AM
All I can think of is Burn Notice... glorious glorious Burn Notice...

Long before Burn Notice there was:

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=270

Whose background I utterly stole and coupled with my own game system.

But yes: The Miami vibe is there.
PCs regularly crash very expensive cars, bodyguard supermodels, and have howling mad gunfights with Columbian mobsters in Coconut Grove.
Miami is a fantastic place to set a contemporary, stylish game. The fact that Miami Vice, Burn Notice and CSI: Miami are all entertaining and popular also means that everyone can picture the city and gets the 'feel' of the game straight away.

Aroka
2010-08-09, 11:03 AM
I don't see anything wrong with this idea - it's pretty close to how I like to DM, in fact. Wide open sandbox games are overrated - more often than not, they are about the players wandering the game world more or less randomly and doing things that seem to have no consequence in the long run. I'd rather play a game with a strong plot and a well-established objective.

"Sandbox" doesn't mean "I didn't think of anything for you to do" - it means the PCs aren't required to stay in a certain area just because you don't know anything about the rest of the world. There's no obstacle to plot - indeed, "plot" is essential, because "plot" means "things that happen in the world independent of you and that you can go and completely mess up if you're interested."

And if a GM can't think of ways to give PCs goals, or the players aren't interested in pursuing and setting their own, they shouldn't be trying to play an open game. But a campaign where the PCs set their own goals and make their mark on a big, living, breathing world with no artificial barriers and no line of encounters they have to follow is way more rewarding than some module with encounters marked 1., 2., 3., 4. ...

arrowhen
2010-08-09, 12:33 PM
"I'll tell you a story, you add color and detail through your character" is a perfectly valid way to play.

Railroading is only "bad" when the passengers are unwilling. So *invite* them along on your scenic journey and, if they accept, railroad away!

The Pressman
2010-08-09, 01:05 PM
Play in Eberron- and have to escort the NPCs across the continent by lightning rail :smallamused:

Yes. Just put them on an actual railroad.

Umael
2010-08-09, 01:27 PM
I have this idea for a game that I'd really like to try, but plot-wise, it's pretty restrictive. The players aren't in control at any point.

Just a point of clarification.

I think what you meant to say here is that the players have a lack of control, or that they do not have much control, throughout most of the game. Denying them any control ever makes them little more than captive audiences.



They're mercenaries hired to go on a job and, by the very nature of the job, they can't decide to go somewhere else and have fun.

...:smallconfused:

Even mercenaries have lives outside of their job, things that happen them, no matter how small. Maybe they are supposed to guard a caravan going from City A to City B. Before the caravan leaves, while guarding the caravan, when the caravan gets to its destination, they've got a little time to kill here and there. Give the PCs small stories centered on them.

Letters from the family. A chess match. Making an exotic dinner. A night on the town, ladies of the evening included.

You don't have to go far to have fun. A businessman on a trip to Paris with a tight schedule STILL has time to do a little sight-seeing...



There's also a limited cast of characters, some of whom are far more powerful than the players and aren't afraid to show it, but I don't want them to turn ito the worst kind of DMPCs... In the end, it's going to be about the story, and them learning about and coming to care for key NPCs.

Um... one, what do you mean by a "limited cast of characters"? This world's ain't big enough for the twelve of us? Highlander-style elimination? Only so much power to go around, and the PCs don't get any of it? Or do you mean it even more extreme, where there are a limited number of character concepts for the PCs?

Two... I think you mean "far more powerful than the PCs" not "far more powerful than the players". Sorry, little things like that bother me.

Three... as people have said already, the story is about the PCs, even if they aren't the big fish in the pond. Yes, they might be taking part in the battle that turns the tide of the war, and yes, the decision is in the hands of the more powerful, but NO, the spotlight should not leave them. Ever. (Think Saving Private Ryan... the main characters are just basic foot soldiers for the most part, and if they were all wiped out, it wouldn't have impacted the war in any significant manner).

Gavinfoxx
2010-08-09, 06:40 PM
I have to agree with everyone else on this. ASK the players. Tell them flat out, "I came up with an idea for an adventure. The only problem is the entire setup is completely railroaded. Are you guys okay with playing something like that for a few sessions?"

Malacode
2010-08-13, 01:57 AM
Thank-you everyone. You've all given me great ideas on how to run this, and I know it'll be a better game thanks to your input. It's only a one off, or maybe two or three, so I think it'll work out fine.

Morph Bark
2010-08-13, 03:39 AM
Put them on a literal railroad adventure. The train goes even across planar boundaries and if they try to get off, they die from being ripped apart by the planar forces that storm around them, the train's magic being the only thing that protects them.

Gavinfoxx
2010-08-13, 09:59 PM
M-Bark... riiiiight...

Anyway, Malacode, be sure to update us when you have that talk, and what was said, and all that! We'd like to know! :)

W3bDragon
2010-08-13, 10:38 PM
Put them on a literal railroad adventure. The train goes even across planar boundaries and if they try to get off, they die from being ripped apart by the planar forces that storm around them, the train's magic being the only thing that protects them.

From someone who has GMed Horror on the Orient Express from beginning to end, I can completely second this. Sometimes eliminating/hiding the railroading is required to keep the players happy. However, it can occasionally be refreshing to make the railroading literally the main component of the adventure.

Aroka
2010-08-14, 09:26 AM
From someone who has GMed Horror on the Orient Express from beginning to end, I can completely second this. Sometimes eliminating/hiding the railroading is required to keep the players happy. However, it can occasionally be refreshing to make the railroading literally the main component of the adventure.

There's a big difference, though. An adventure that takes place on a railroad, or on a space flight from Earth to Mars or Alpha Centauri, isn't inherently a railroad just because the physical environment is restricted. The physical environment is always restricted.

An adventure on a train is a railroad if it's a series of events strung together that happen in the prescribed order without any PC input, and the PCs cannot derail the story. (Or, well, the train too. Because they could.)

There's a huge difference between a railroad plot and a plot that happens on a railroad.

The Big Dice
2010-08-16, 10:32 AM
There's a huge difference between a railroad plot and a plot that happens on a railroad.

If you don't have prearranged events that are going to happen no matter what the PCs do, you've just broken the illusion that the world is alive. The world doesn't stop when the PCs walk out of a room and start up again when they walk in.

You can call it railroading if you want, but that's really quite a shallow view of the situation. In your day to day life you don't have any control over what other people do, even if that has a huge impact on you. Is that railroading?

Why is is any different in an RPG?

The Glyphstone
2010-08-16, 10:44 AM
Because events happening when the PCs aren't there isn't railroading. Events happening regardless of them being there or not and that they have no hope of stopping is railroading.

For a simple, semi-harmless example, a murder mystery. The plot calls for a rich noble to die, and the PC's to investigate the death.

Elsewhere in the house, the maid is making out with the butler - an alibi, but they won't admit to it. This is a pre-arranged event that the PC's are in no way involved in, and could be plot-crucial for eliminating suspects, but it's not railroading.

Should one of the PC's happen to be in the same room as the noble, though, having a knife-wielding assassin spring through the window, kill him, and escape in a 'cutscene' is ham-fisted and painfully bad railroading.

If the PC's would be in a position to derail key elements of your plot (such as the pivotal murder), rearrange the plot to compensate...if he was going to be stabbed, have him poisoned instead, or cursed.

The Big Dice
2010-08-16, 10:55 AM
Because events happening when the PCs aren't there isn't railroading. Events happening regardless of them being there or not and that they have no hope of stopping is railroading.

For a simple, semi-harmless example, a murder mystery. The plot calls for a rich noble to die, and the PC's to investigate the death.

Elsewhere in the house, the maid is making out with the butler - an alibi, but they won't admit to it. This is a pre-arranged event that the PC's are in no way involved in, and could be plot-crucial for eliminating suspects, but it's not railroading.
It's an event happening regardless of them being there or not. The plot calls for it and therefore it happens. That meets your criteria of it being railroading.


Should one of the PC's happen to be in the same room as the noble, though, having a knife-wielding assassin spring through the window, kill him, and escape in a 'cutscene' is ham-fisted and painfully bad railroading.

If the PC's would be in a position to derail key elements of your plot (such as the pivotal murder), rearrange the plot to compensate...if he was going to be stabbed, have him poisoned instead, or cursed.

Having to twist around and uncomfortably rearrange your carefully plotted murder mystery is even worse than railroading. If you're going to use plot devices, use them with confidence and gusto. As a GM, you run the game The players don't. The players respond to the scene you set and when you're in the GM chair, you should be in charge of things.

If the players are in a position to derail your plot, who's fault is that? If the plot doesn't account for actions the players might take and doesn't have a plausible means to get them out of the way at key dramatic moments, where is the problem?

Why aren't they at the big party when the Lord in question is being killed? Why aren't they making out in a broom cupboard? If you're letting your players derail your plots, it's worth taking time to watch some movies that use the same plots as the ones you're running. See how screenwriters keep their characters out of the way and use some of the same devices.

A murder mystery is a bad choice as a means of saying what is and isn't railroading, especially a locked room murder mystery. In a locked room murder mystery, certain events have to take place no matter what the PCs do. Therefore by definition it's railroaded.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 11:02 AM
If the PC's would be in a position to derail key elements of your plot (such as the pivotal murder), rearrange the plot to compensate...if he was going to be stabbed, have him poisoned instead, or cursed.
Er, maybe not.

If a PC just stopped a murder and then turns around to see that the victim has suddenly been killed by other means he will rightfully shout "railroad" - his actions have had no impact on the plot, when they should have.

Far better to not have the PCs in position to disrupt plot-essential occurances, and better still if you construct a plot which doesn't have such scenes at all!

The name of the game is autonomy. I just got out of a game where none of the players felt we had any impact in the direction of the story - despite the fact that the DM swore up-and-down he was adjusting things in accordance to our actions. But because none of us felt like we had autonomy, it still felt the same. Specifically:
(1) All the dice rolls were secret
Nobody knew whether our skill checks were succeeding or not, or whether they even mattered. For the whole time I was making Spot & Listen checks at +8 and never saw or heard anything; another PC had +0 or +1 and yet seemed to find every plot relevant detail there was to see.

(2) None of the NPCs reacted to our actions
We were on a quest given to us (a bunch of strangers) by the local Lady (my cousin) to track down a man and bring him to justice. At the very first suspicious location, half the party refused to investigate despite the fact that the area was not inherently dangerous. So we went back to the Lady and I complained that several of my allies were disobeying her orders and asked for them to be reprimanded. Instead, she scolded me for tattling and told us to work together. After that, I no longer assumed that the Lady would react as my cousin or as a noble; she was just there to give us plots.

So when we came back and told her that some random peasants decided to ambush her clearly-identified agents, I was unsurprised to hear her dismiss that turn of events - it was peripheral to the plot, so why bother caring?
In short, if you're going to re-write the plot, do so in a way that doesn't invalidate the players' actions. If they stop the murder, have the noble ask them to figure out who's trying to kill him. If the noble must die, make the first attack a false-flag operation designed to distract the noble while the real coup is launched - that makes the PCs feel like they're part of the story, as opposed to being pawns of the DM's plot.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-16, 11:09 AM
Er, maybe not.

If a PC just stopped a murder and then turns around to see that the victim has suddenly been killed by other means he will rightfully shout "railroad" - his actions have had no impact on the plot, when they should have.

In short, if you're going to re-write the plot, do so in a way that doesn't invalidate the players' actions. If they stop the murder, have the noble ask them to figure out who's trying to kill him. If the noble must die, make the first attack a false-flag operation designed to distract the noble while the real coup is launched - that makes the PCs feel like they're part of the story, as opposed to being pawns of the DM's plot.

That's sort of what I meant, though I guess I didn't explain it well enough. If the PCs are in position to stop the murder, then change the method by which he is murdered. Schrodinger's Murder Method, so to speak - if the victim is ever alone, he can be stabbed in the back; if the PCs happen to be hanging around him a lot, set it up so he gets poisoned. Heck, if they've for some reason fixated on him and are desperately protecting him, smack them for reading your notes, then change the victim. Unless you're running a pre-published adventure that one of your players has already read (or they stole your notes), there's no way for them to know that you swapped things around to facilitate the plot. Some players will just instinctively cry 'RAILROAD CHOO CHOO' whenever anything happens, but you can go ahead and lie to them.:smallbiggrin:

Not all games can be 100% sandbox, unless your players like it and you're prepared for it. Railroading is a subjective thing, because it depends on the players being aware that they're on rails...if they never figure it out, who does it harm, besides us armchair DMs on the internet?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 11:14 AM
That's sort of what I meant, though I guess I didn't explain it well enough. If the PCs are in position to stop the murder, then change the method by which he is murdered. Schrodinger's Murder Method, so to speak - if the victim is ever alone, he can be stabbed in the back; if the PCs happen to be hanging around him a lot, set it up so he gets poisoned. Unless you're running a pre-published adventure that one of your players has already read, there's no way for them to know that you swapped things around to facilitate the plot. Some players will just instinctively cry 'RAILROAD CHOO CHOO' whenever anything happens, but you can go ahead and lie to them.:smallbiggrin:
Even then, it can get annoying to the PCs - pull that a lot and they'll start in on outlandish precautions to lampshade how much of a Murder By Plot this is.

No, if you're going to have a murder mystery at all, either introduce the PCs after the murder has taken place OR give the PCs a chance to thwart the murder entirely. Put all your pieces in place - tretcherous butlers, ninja assassins, and the like - and then leave hints for the PCs to discover.

If they find nothing, then they won't suspect anything - Good, you have a murder mystery.

If they find something, but don't figure it out - Great, you still have a murder mystery and the players will later realize they had a chance to stop the murder before it happened.

If they find something and use it to stop the murder - Fine, you just had a "stop the evil plot" adventure rather than a "solve the murder mystery" adventure.

EDIT: the reason you have to be on guard for railroading as a DM is because players are more perceptive than you think. Even if they never figure out any of your riddles, they can smell a railroad from a mile away, and they do not like it! If you plan all your adventures with player autonomy in mind, you'll have happier players than if you write straight plots and Schrodinger your way around the PC actions.

MarkusWolfe
2010-08-16, 11:16 AM
Because events happening when the PCs aren't there isn't railroading. Events happening regardless of them being there or not and that they have no hope of stopping is railroading.

For a simple, semi-harmless example, a murder mystery. The plot calls for a rich noble to die, and the PC's to investigate the death.

Elsewhere in the house, the maid is making out with the butler - an alibi, but they won't admit to it. This is a pre-arranged event that the PC's are in no way involved in, and could be plot-crucial for eliminating suspects, but it's not railroading.

Should one of the PC's happen to be in the same room as the noble, though, having a knife-wielding assassin spring through the window, kill him, and escape in a 'cutscene' is ham-fisted and painfully bad railroading.

If the PC's would be in a position to derail key elements of your plot (such as the pivotal murder), rearrange the plot to compensate...if he was going to be stabbed, have him poisoned instead, or cursed.

Yeah, at least let the PCs try to stop the murder, or if they fail, apprehend the murderer immediately. If you've got any melee characters with the right alignment, let them manhandle/intimidate the murderer until they get the information. Or they could try other methods. Can't you just picture a paladin and a blackguard playing good cop/bad cop? (sometimes you got to wonder who would be the good cop and the the bad cop though, since some paladins are pretty extreme and the blackguard may sympathize with the criminal to a small extent)

As to the OP....I've always viewed the world being divided into what happens to you and how you react to it. So if you're going to strictly control the first one, keep the latter on a fairly long leash. I've got to agree with all the guys who are saying that there should be many ways to achieve any given objective.

Whenever the party has traveled off somewhere and they just finished their quest, give them a little sight seeing time before the boss calls them back into the office for their next assignment. Also give them time to be in character, ie; time for the paladin and cleric to go to church, time for the bard and barbarian to go to the tavern for drinking and picking up chicks, time for the rogue to go into back alleys to deal in stolen and otherwise illegal goods, and so on and so forth.

The boss NPCs should be in the background...but they should be doing things in the background. You need a stealth guy who's always scouting out the place the party's going to next (probably should be less powerful than the entire party, but more powerful than the stealth PC), a magic guy who's always scrying about and otherwise detecting magical things (diviner specialist) a general who's giving commands to the party and (implied) to other parties. Hell, you should even introduce the other mercenary parties that form your coworkers.

As time goes on and the party gets more and more dangerous missions, they should rise through the ranks of the mercenary organization, earning prestige, fame, hot young women (unless they're straight chicks or otherwise not into women) better pay, respect, and a change of treatment by all the NPCs.

Also, check out http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps

The Big Dice
2010-08-16, 02:17 PM
EDIT: the reason you have to be on guard for railroading as a DM is because players are more perceptive than you think. Even if they never figure out any of your riddles, they can smell a railroad from a mile away, and they do not like it! If you plan all your adventures with player autonomy in mind, you'll have happier players than if you write straight plots and Schrodinger your way around the PC actions.

I'd say that rather than being on guard for railroading, be aware of what railroading is, what it's for and the potential benefits of it.

Nobody complains when they get on a rollercoaster and it follows the rails. Especially when they've had the experience of standing in line waiting to board the car and then the rising anticipation as the car climbs up to that first corner.

If you plot your scenario with twists, turns and unexpected reversals, players will be too busy enjoying themselves to be looking for the rails.

Remember the bait and switch: let them think they're in one situation (a locked room murder mystery) when suddenly there's a second killing, and it's the maid one of the PCs was making out with. Said PC was seen going into the broom closet with her, nobody saw either of them leave and now she's dead.

Suddenly you've gone from a murder mystery to a prove the innocence of a PC situation. It's on rails because events the players were unable to influence took place, but they should be too busy dealing with the situation to care about that.

And if they're more interested in looking for rails than playing the game, maybe they should be handed the Wii remote instead of their character sheets.
[/LIST] PCs

MarkusWolfe
2010-08-16, 02:36 PM
Nobody complains when they get on a rollercoaster and it follows the rails.

This. Just this.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 02:39 PM
Nobody complains when they get on a rollercoaster and it follows the rails. Especially when they've had the experience of standing in line waiting to board the car and then the rising anticipation as the car climbs up to that first corner.
I've yet to meet a party in a RPG who expect a session to play out like a rollercoaster ride - something you wait to start, ride without participation, and then smile when it's over.

Perhaps your players are different; mine like to shape the story rather than merely act it out.

Umael
2010-08-16, 02:44 PM
This comment is directed at The Big Dice, although everyone else should feel free to answer.

From my viewpoint, the term "railroading" has a very limited and very negative definition. It starts with the players being nothing more (key words) than a captive audience who are along for the ride. It implies a game in which the characters are little better than scripted actors and anyone who is persceptive can see that the destination, direction, and even the means of obtaining that destination has been planned out by the GM long before, without regard to either characters or players.

When I hear people complain about railroad plots, it is because they are accusing the GM of putting together something that must go according to plan and allows for no creative input or diverence from the path at any point. It implies a GM who isn't creative, probably unable to improvise, and just isn't very much fun to have as a GM.

The term "railroad" seems to be used in this thread (and by you in particular) as something with a broader meaning, some of which would actually be acceptable.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-16, 02:44 PM
A rollercoaster ride would make a really terrible RP session.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 03:01 PM
The term "railroad" seems to be used in this thread (and by you in particular) as something with a broader meaning, some of which would actually be acceptable.
First: an excellent frame for the issue

Second: IMHO, DMs tend to fall into the mistaken belief that railroading is good because, at heart, many DMs got into the business to tell stories.
For them, they have a particular story they'd like to tell and they'd really prefer to tell it. For the longest time I fell into this mould - one perpetuated by the "Player vs. DM" aesthetic of TSR D&D - but ultimately it results in a poorer game for the players.

Railroading is just as you said - a term for a game in which characters have little to no autonomy and the "story" is rigidly defined. One experiences a Railroad Game; one does not participate in it.

Of course, it should be remembered that giving your characters autonomy does not transform the game into a "sandbox" - your game can have a frame, set-pieces, and even a narrative arc without being a locked-down experience.
The key is, as always, "autonomy" - the ability of characters to affect the flow of the story, and even its ultimate outcome, beyond the initial envisioning of the DM. If you can structure the story to anticipate PC actions, then good - but the trick is not to be beholden to your original vision once the game is afoot.

The Big Dice
2010-08-16, 04:35 PM
I've yet to meet a party in a RPG who expect a session to play out like a rollercoaster ride - something you wait to start, ride without participation, and then smile when it's over.

Perhaps your players are different; mine like to shape the story rather than merely act it out.
The PCs in my game are a part of the world. The players understand that there are things that are outside their ability to influence. They realise that in character actions have in character consequences, and that ultimately it's up to them to fumble the ball or to score the goal.

But they aren't always in control of the situation, and most of the time they're smart enough to know when it's time to run away.

The thing is, not all stories are about the players. Have you ever thought of making them second in command to Macbeth or King Lear? Or thought about putting them on the Orient Express? Or the Titanic? Possibly my background in samurai games, where players aren't always the centre of events or attention gives me a different take on things here.

Try taking a "stuff happens that you can't control, now it's time to see how you deal with it" line rather than an "everything happens because of you" approach to a scenario. Even if it's only as a one off, you might find it a refreshing change of pace.

It's also how most thrillers are structured.


This comment is directed at The Big Dice, although everyone else should feel free to answer.
<snip>

The term "railroad" seems to be used in this thread (and by you in particular) as something with a broader meaning, some of which would actually be acceptable.
If you examine the commonly accepted definitions of the word "railroad" in RPG play, you find a worrying trend.

A lot of people will throw the term around when the GM has a structure to his games. Forgetting that anything that is pre planned is by the very nature of the game, railroaded. It's going to happen no matter what the players do, they have no say in the matter. It's on rails.

Common suggestions like "If your players go the wrong direction to have the encounter you planned, put the encounter in their path anyway" or the suggestion earlier to have a "Schroedinger's Murderer" are really the worst kind of railroading. They're the hidden kind.


First: an excellent frame for the issue

Second: IMHO, DMs tend to fall into the mistaken belief that railroading is good because, at heart, many DMs got into the business to tell stories.
I'm absolutely not in the business of telling stories. Telling a story is removing the importance of the players from events. Think about it, a story has a beginning a middle and an ending. And the person telling it knows where it will go, ore often than not before it even starts.

It's a train journey, in other words.

I'm in the business of setting a scene, developing a situation and then letting players deal with it as they choose. They can use force, diplomacy or the metagame or anything in between to resolve the situation. All I know going in is what the NPCs are up to and possibly any physical (weather, earthquakes and other "act of god" scale) events that I want to take place.

For them, they have a particular story they'd like to tell and they'd really prefer to tell it. For the longest time I fell into this mould - one perpetuated by the "Player vs. DM" aesthetic of TSR D&D - but ultimately it results in a poorer game for the players.

Railroading is just as you said - a term for a game in which characters have little to no autonomy and the "story" is rigidly defined. One experiences a Railroad Game; one does not participate in it.

Of course, it should be remembered that giving your characters autonomy does not transform the game into a "sandbox" - your game can have a frame, set-pieces, and even a narrative arc without being a locked-down experience.

Railroading is a term that has a lot of different meanings, but mostly negative connotations in the minds of most roleplayers.

The difference between how a player sees railroading and how a GM (while wearing her Writer's Hat) sees it can be a massive gulf.

If you have a plot to develop, a story to tell or a world that needs saving, how do you do it? Say your campaign idea is that the BBEG's chief henchman is going to enact a ritual that will turn the sun out, paving the way for his vampire master to take over the world. You're now on rails, because you have an endpoint to aim for. Everything you do as a GM has to work towards that, or it's just filler.

And that's how I define rails. And why I say they're not necessarily a bad thing.

As for "player v GM" style games, you have to have an element of that. If the NPCs aren't fighting to the absolute best of their ability, you're selling them short. After all, they don't want to die any more than the PCs do.

To me, stories come after the event, not before it. I don't tell people how to react when they beat the ninja's Stealth roll. Nor do I tell them how to react when they realise the guy in the black pyjamas was just a diversion for the geisha stood beside the Emperor. The woman with the knives in her hairpins.

I set the scene, it's up to you to figure out how you want to deal with it. And if you miss something important (which I'll almost always give you a chance to see, unless I mess up) then that's your fault. And that means your character has to deal with the consequences.


The key is, as always, "autonomy" - the ability of characters to affect the flow of the story, and even its ultimate outcome, beyond the initial envisioning of the DM. If you can structure the story to anticipate PC actions, then good - but the trick is not to be beholden to your original vision once the game is afoot.

Autonomy is important on both sides of the GM screen.

Except of course, some RPGs encourage player entitlement, or say that an adversarial GM is a Bad Thing.

I say that a GM should be in control of his game. Respond truthfully to a situation, in the manner to which the NPC dealing with the situation would react. And don't let players push you round. In this day and age of player entitlement, us GMs need to sieze control of our gaming tables again.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 04:56 PM
Autonomy is important on both sides of the GM screen.

Except of course, some RPGs encourage player entitlement, or say that an adversarial GM is a Bad Thing.

I say that a GM should be in control of his game. Respond truthfully to a situation, in the manner to which the NPC dealing with the situation would react. And don't let players push you round. In this day and age of player entitlement, us GMs need to sieze control of our gaming tables again.
Ah, another proponent of the BT School of DMing :smalltongue:

I think the core confusion here stems from micro-autonomy and macro-autonomy.
From what I can tell, you favor lots of micro-autonomy (i.e. players interpreting their rolls) but limited macro-automomy (i.e. players altering the course of the story). Nobody seriously contends that an Evil Cult working on a ritual to end the world is "railroading;" however, making it so that the very same Evil Cult can only be stopped by a massive showdown at their Evil HQ - regardless of what the PCs do up to that point - is railroading, at least in my book.

This is the sense I got from your "murder mystery" solution - let the PCs stop the murder the one time, but make sure the murder is done at some future point. In my book, this is allowing micro-autonomy and banning macro-autonomy - you're having that murder mystery come hell or high water. In the end, everyone is fine with pure micro-autonomy but that sort of freedom is illusory without macro-autonomy to back it up. I prefer to keep the two separate: if an occurance is essential to the plot, I make sure there was never any question as to the PCs' ability to affect it. Consequently, any occurance that is placed before the PC is a genuine opportunity for them to change where the story is going.
IMHO, the Benevolent Tyranny ("BT") School of DMing is a vestige of the wargamer's rule. Few modern RPGs are structure such that the players are simply playing a game agains the DM - nearly all of them assume some level of cooperative storytelling in which character development (of the literary variety) is an element. Players today expect to have macro-autonomy when playing a RPG - they can get all the micro-autonomy they want from video & board games; only in the pen & paper RPG can you possible exert macro-autonomy to any extent. To run modern RPGs as if they were mere wargames can betray player expectations and makes poor use of the mechanical tools given to the DM.

This is not to say "you're doing it wrong" of course; but as the self-proclaimed founder of the Purposivist Design Paradigm ("PDP") School of game design, I have to enunciate the School's beliefs whenever possible :smalltongue:

Umael
2010-08-16, 05:12 PM
If you examine the commonly accepted definitions of the word "railroad" in RPG play, you find a worrying trend.

I wasn't asking for the "commonly accepted" definition, but rather, your definition.

I also added that it seemed that this broad definition has some acceptance to it because it has structure.

You didn't give your definition, and while you acknowledged that it is used, it is also a bad sign.

Which is interesting, because while both of us agree that the term "railroading" has a negative connotation, we disagree on how broad the term can be used.



A lot of people will throw the term around when the GM has a structure to his games. Forgetting that anything that is pre planned is by the very nature of the game, railroaded.

I am going to respectfully disagree with you.

From a technical viewpoint, your "definition" is wrong because the GM is well within rights to declare a starting point before game has started. That is structure and it is pre-planned, but it is hardly "railroading". Would you accusing someone of saying, "We're playing Forgotten Realms, you all start in Waterdeep"? Or "Tomb of Horrors, Core Only, level 9th characters, standard 25-point build and WBL"?

I would hope not.

From a more expansive view, any printed module hints at being pre-planned. Look at a dungeon for an example - "You are in a featureless room with two doors, one on the east wall, one on the north wall." The dungeon will react to what the party does in a pre-planned way, mere based on the actions of the party.



It's going to happen no matter what the players do, they have no say in the matter. It's on rails.

Again, I disagree with you.

Let's say we are playing d20 Modern. You are playing an FBI agent. Your boss tells you to fly to Seattle (from Washington D.C.). As GM, I just dictated where your character is going and how. However, I didn't say that you ARE on a plane to Seattle.

Does the character have no say in the matter? Is this adventure already on the rails, just two minutes into game?

I would say, emphatically, no.

Furthermore, even if this was "on the rails", it is hardly enough of an intro for me to form an opinion on how much fun this game would be to play.



Common suggestions like "If your players go the wrong direction to have the encounter you planned, put the encounter in their path anyway" or the suggestion earlier to have a "Schroedinger's Murderer" are really the worst kind of railroading. They're the hidden kind.

Ironicly, I had this discussion before. I explained in this theoretical example that I was very tired from a long week at work, but I had made a dungeon for the next game session. I placed the dungeon in a place where the PCs had justifiable reason to investigate... only to have the players revolt and refuse to go into the area the dungeon was, let alone the dungeon. So, tired and not up to improvising, I called the game session off so that we could do something else and pick up the game next session.

This example was derided by a few.

Since that dungeon had the McGuffin that was needed to stop the BBEG's plot and there was a valid, reasonable, logical in-game reason for them to go into the dungeon, and the PCs refused, the logical conclusion was that because they didn't get the McGuffin, the BBEG succeeded, game over.

This conclusion was also derided. I detected a pattern here.

It seemed to lack versimilatude (sp?) to denote that, yes, all signs point to the McGuffin being here, and then secretly move it so that it was in the path of the PCs. It also seemed wrong to declare the game over because the PCs failed (despite the hints), and it was not accepted that I simply take a break to figure out how to avoid breaking the versimilatude while keeping the game going.

So while, yes, I agree with you, that kind of GMing is little more than a dirty trick, it does not form a solid argument against the broader definition of "railroading" of which you disagree.




Railroading is a term that has a lot of different meanings, but mostly negative connotations in the minds of most roleplayers.

The difference between how a player sees railroading and how a GM (while wearing her Writer's Hat) sees it can be a massive gulf.

Agreed.



If you have a plot to develop, a story to tell or a world that needs saving, how do you do it? Say your campaign idea is that the BBEG's chief henchman is going to enact a ritual that will turn the sun out, paving the way for his vampire master to take over the world. You're now on rails, because you have an endpoint to aim for. Everything you do as a GM has to work towards that, or it's just filler.

And that's how I define rails. And why I say they're not necessarily a bad thing.

But you used terms like "the players have no say", which is misleading.

My definition of "railroading" DOES seem to be a lot more strictly defined. I do not see it as railroading to put someone at point A and tell them they have to get to point B, as I have no idea what they are going to do from A to B.

Aroka
2010-08-16, 06:44 PM
If you don't have prearranged events that are going to happen no matter what the PCs do, you've just broken the illusion that the world is alive. The world doesn't stop when the PCs walk out of a room and start up again when they walk in.

That's just wrong. But if you actually mean the following, then we are in agreement:

"If you don't have prearranged events that are going to happen if the PCs don't interfere, you've just broken the illusion that the world is alive."

If they happen no matter what the PCs do, that's a railroad and bad writing. If they happen if the PCs do nothing (about them), that's a good plot and world.

Considering the bit you quoted, I'm really confused what you're actually replying to, because it certainly isn't anything I've said. From your later posts, I think you're arguing with some idea in your head (player entitlement, GMs losing control, etc.) that has nothing to do with me or what I've written. Go figure.


An adventure on a train is a railroad if it's a series of events strung together that happen in the prescribed order without any PC input, and the PCs cannot derail the story. (Or, well, the train too. Because they could.)

That's very specific - series of events strung together that happen ... without any PC input and the PCs cannot derail the story.

This is, in fact, the whole point of a sandbox. There are things, and they will happen a certain way if there is no PC input. Once the PCs get involved, everything potentially changes.


a campaign where the PCs set their own goals and make their mark on a big, living, breathing world with no artificial barriers and no line of encounters they have to follow is way more rewarding than some module with encounters marked 1., 2., 3., 4. ...


It's an event happening regardless of them being there or not. The plot calls for it and therefore it happens. That meets your criteria of it being railroading.

Those are some weird criteria for railroading. Railroading is when things happen the way the GM has decided regardless of what the PCs try to do.

Railroading is never good and never necessary. It can, at best, be neutral - it can work as part of a lackluster adventure where the PCs just go from place to place having encounters and don't actually create any kind of meaningful or interesting story. I play D&D like that a lot - it's as good a way to waste time with my friends as any.

Umael's definition is very good and accurate. People complain about railroading because railroading sucks by definition - it's specifically when the GM ignores player input and negates player agency, instead telling a story that they have no part in.


The thing is, not all stories are about the players. Have you ever thought of making them second in command to Macbeth or King Lear? Or thought about putting them on the Orient Express? Or the Titanic? Possibly my background in samurai games, where players aren't always the centre of events or attention gives me a different take on things here.

None of those have anything to do with railroading, inherently. Being on the Orient Express or the Titanic isn't railroading. If the PCs get a warning that there's an iceberg coming up, and one of them knows how to navigate and steer an ocean liner, and they get to the wheel, and then the GM starts floundering and ass-pulling nonsense to keep the Titanic on course to the iceberg, that's railroading.

Your definition of railroading has nothing to do with what other people mean by the word - "the world is the world and reacts realistically to events and actions" isn't railroading, it's how things should work. A cowherd probably can't change national policy or win a war. That's just how things are, it's not railroading. If, however, a cowherd gets into a king's bedroom with a knife in the middle of the night and the king just happens to survive being stabbed in the neck and wakes up and kicks the cowherd's ass, or guards appear for no reason and somehow manage to stop the cowherd from stabbing the king despite being on the other side of the room, that's railroading.

There's a giant difference.


Try taking a "stuff happens that you can't control, now it's time to see how you deal with it" line rather than an "everything happens because of you" approach to a scenario. Even if it's only as a one off, you might find it a refreshing change of pace.

That's nothing to do with railroading, necessarily, although it is a separate problem - most players will probably have a limit to how long they'll enjoy playing someone who can't make a mark on the world.

Realistic power and influence has no connection to railroading. Indeed, the hole crux of railroading is that it's unrealistic - PCs are limited or their actions negated for no good reason other than "the show must go on!"


Common suggestions like "If your players go the wrong direction to have the encounter you planned, put the encounter in their path anyway" or the suggestion earlier to have a "Schroedinger's Murderer" are really the worst kind of railroading. They're the hidden kind.

IMO they're the better kind; if the players aren't aware their choice was negated, they won't feel bad about it. However, it is dangerous to do this, too - if the players' choices never seem to affect anything, they're going to get frustrated and bored. I wouldn't use those methods myself - I prefer to play to the PCs' motivations. It's not exactly difficult.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-16, 06:53 PM
First: an excellent frame for the issue

Second: IMHO, DMs tend to fall into the mistaken belief that railroading is good because, at heart, many DMs got into the business to tell stories.

Unfortunately, that's the case. Every railroading DM I've ever met happily tells me that the player vs DM thing is "oldschool". None of them recall that "oldschool" was a frigging wargame, and D&D began as entirely a dungeon-diving fest. Stories, hah.

I think it's extremely unfortunate that the roleplaying game has been likened to a story. The results are similar to what happens when a video game is made to be "cinematic". Looks great, but gameplay consists of "push A to not die".

The Glyphstone
2010-08-16, 07:01 PM
IMO they're the better kind; if the players aren't aware their choice was negated, they won't feel bad about it. However, it is dangerous to do this, too - if the players' choices never seem to affect anything, they're going to get frustrated and bored. I wouldn't use those methods myself - I prefer to play to the PCs' motivations. It's not exactly difficult.

Very, very dangerous, because as mentioned, players can be far more perceptive than they are given credit for. If you do it right, you can weave the story so that it always appears that their actions caused the plot point to happen, even if you had secretly intended said plot point regardless of what actions they ended up taking. If you do it wrong, they'll figure it out and you lose credibility. DMs are story-tellers and referees, but they're also stage magicians, and you never want the audience to see behind the curtain.

The Big Dice
2010-08-16, 07:02 PM
Ah, another proponent of the BT School of DMing :smalltongue:

I think the core confusion here stems from micro-autonomy and macro-autonomy.
Getting into macro and micro definitions is sophistry. If you take choice away from players, by definition you are railroading. However, the difference is, I maintain that railroading isn't always a Bad Thing (tm).

You are focussed on story, I maintain that there is no story. There is plot and situation, but no story. The differences might be subtle, but they are very real. And hard to pin down on paper. I maintain that sandbox games only work if you have a very clearly defined and exquisitely detailed sandbox.

And if you don't have a venue like that to play in, you're inevitably going to put people on a bus between points A and B.

Expanding on the Evil Cult example, if you don't let the players come up with their own solution, which may or may not even slightly resemble the way you think the world should work, you're taking choice away from them. BUt if you let them come up with any solution they like, it might well be the wrong one.

My method would be to have the players fail at that point. They messed up, just like Sam and Dean at the end of Season 4 of Supernatural. Now they have to deal with the consequences of that.

Dress it up any way you like, but as a GM you will have a series of goals the PCs must accomplish in mind to stop the apocalypse. And by doing that, you're railroading.

But that's not as bad as it first sounds. Is it forcing people to act in certain ways, or is it giving shape and direction to your campaign?

IMHO, the Benevolent Tyranny ("BT") School of DMing is a vestige of the wargamer's rule. Few modern RPGs are structure such that the players are simply playing a game agains the DM - nearly all of them assume some level of cooperative storytelling in which character development (of the literary variety) is an element. Players today expect to have macro-autonomy when playing a RPG - they can get all the micro-autonomy they want from video & board games; only in the pen & paper RPG can you possible exert macro-autonomy to any extent. To run modern RPGs as if they were mere wargames can betray player expectations and makes poor use of the mechanical tools given to the DM.
As for the so-called benevolent tyranny, if I have to make a ruling at the table, I make it. It's my table when I'm in the GM chair, and you have a choice: respect that or leave.

After all, if I don't show, there is no game.

As for modern RPGs and wargames, you can't tell me that 4th edition D&D is anything other than a tactical miniatures wargame dressed up as an RPG. Complete with a mechanic to get you past those "boring bits" and back into the fight.

<All kinds of things...>

There's some interesting points here.

Dungeons are the ultimate form of railroading in my opinion. There's literally walls telling you where you can and can't go, with predetermined encounters in specific places. There's almost nothing the players can do to change this, other than deciding which way to turn and which doors to open.

It's practically a textbook example of railroading. And was the beginning of me realising that rails aren't always something to avoid.

When it comes to telling people in modern games that they have to go somewhere, you'd be amazed how many times I've heard people cry out against it. Especially when they're either hired to do a certain thing or their employer tells them to do it.

Even more so if transport is provided. I've literally heard people saying "NO!" to their boss in a modern era game giving them plane tickets and a hire car.

At the opposite extreme, I've had the GM tell the group that was HAD to go and find the other eight of the Twelve Magical McGuffins. Despite us having four of them already and knowing that there was another group of adventurers seeking them out. A group that already had a couple. And despite every player in the group having other loose ends that they wanted their characters to take care of.

The thing is, I'd describe both as railroading. You're being told what you're doing by the GM. The difference isn't in method, or in result. The difference is in intent. One example you're being told where to go and what to do when you get there, the other you're being told what to do.

In one example, you're being told what the objective is and being given the means to get to it. In the other, you're being told you can't do something that you want to and you have to do something you don't need to. Both are taking options away from you, but one os far more objectionable than the other.

That's just wrong. But if you actually mean the following, then we are in agreement:

"If you don't have prearranged events that are going to happen if the PCs don't interfere, you've just broken the illusion that the world is alive."
The PCs can't be everywhere all the time. Especially if they're the kind of PCs who are never seen apart. And equally, they can't stop a BBEG giving the order to send his armies to the City of the Feeble King so that he can take possession of the Throne of Plot Progress.

Nor can they stop the Feeble King from being manipulated by the Secretly Evil Advisor.

Or rather, they can. But doing so gets them branded as traitors and makes their task all the more difficult.

Things happen off camera. That's why some people suggest the "cutaway" scene. Show the BBEG doing something dramatic at the right moment, even though the PCs can't affect it.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-16, 07:08 PM
Very, very dangerous, because as mentioned, players can be far more perceptive than they are given credit for. If you do it right, you can weave the story so that it always appears that their actions caused the plot point to happen, even if you had secretly intended said plot point regardless of what actions they ended up taking. If you do it wrong, they'll figure it out and you lose credibility. DMs are story-tellers and referees, but they're also stage magicians, and you never want the audience to see behind the curtain.

I do reuse dungeons that were bypassed. I should note that dungeons should not be confused with plot points. Just set it aside, and use it when next appropriate, with CR adjustments if need be. All material that the players have not yet seen is functionally equivalent.

That said, if your plotline looks like the following:
1. Get MacGuffin A for plot point B.
2. Repeat 1, replacing A with C, and B with D.
3. Continue x number of times.
4. Fight boss.

You probably think railroading is good. Well, no. You just are terrible at writing adventures. If you believe you HAVE to railroad to make your story work, then you had a problem long before you got to that particular point, and the results of these problems are inevitable. Players eventually will see things differently than you, and try something different. It's a natural result of us being different people. If you've designed it all as a linear collection of must-hit plot points, you don't really understand RPGing.

Fri
2010-08-16, 07:15 PM
My only regret here is just some people here seems to think that there's only one way to play an rpg.

I've played both kind of rpg, the one where you're just put in a setting and free to do whatever you like, and the one where's there's supposed to be a story to follow from start to end, though I play the latter more. And I can see that each can work.

Some player do expect to have a cool storyline in their game you know? Those players won't like to play in sandbox game. If you say that they're newbie player or not a real rpger or don't understand how tabletop rpg work, you're just as bad as people who say that sandbox game is only for shallow player who's only interested to play as violent wandering hobo or something.

edit: hillariously, I was ninjaed by the person above me, who said the exact same thing with the example I provided in my post. "You do not really understand RPGing" indeed.... I honestly posted this as a general reply before reading the above post.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-16, 07:19 PM
I'm going to take the quote and 'you' in a general tense, and assume it wasn't directed at me as a personal attack.



I do reuse dungeons that were bypassed. I should note that dungeons should not be confused with plot points. Just set it aside, and use it when next appropriate, with CR adjustments if need be. All material that the players have not yet seen is functionally equivalent.

That said, if your plotline looks like the following:
1. Get MacGuffin A for plot point B.
2. Repeat 1, replacing A with C, and B with D.
3. Continue x number of times.
4. Fight boss.

You probably think railroading is good. Well, no. You just are terrible at writing adventures. If you believe you HAVE to railroad to make your story work, then you had a problem long before you got to that particular point, and the results of these problems are inevitable. Players eventually will see things differently than you, and try something different. It's a natural result of us being different people. If you've designed it all as a linear collection of must-hit plot points, you don't really understand RPGing.


You say you re-use dungeons, but not plot points, that they're different. Unless you're running the exact sort of video-game-esque chain fetch quest like described above, though, they can be.

Hypothetical scenario: You've designed a cool adventure/sidequest featuring a beleagured town of peasants under attack by vicious bandits, because you know the party are a bunch of heroic do-gooders and would be likely to help them. Unfortunately for you, the party abruptly decides that they won't head inland across the kingdom where you had planted this village, but veer south to the ocean coast. Is it railroading to uproot this entire adventure and instead have a beleagured fishing village under attack by vicious pirates, because you don't want your prepared material to go to waste? Does it become railroading if you were going to plant a coded letter from the BBEG on the bandit chief, and instead give it to the pirate captain? Is there a definitive point where the line can be drawn?

Tyndmyr
2010-08-16, 07:26 PM
General indeed.

Well, first off, not every dungeon is plot critical. Side quests happen. Secondly, look at that plot point. What about it is important? Is it important that they discover that pirate mc pirateson is working with the BBEG? Then find another way for them to discover this info. Break down the relevant thing that is important to the basics, and it's generally pretty easy to come up with alternatives. And if the players just never seek out information about the enemy at all, well, perhaps they miss that clue, making their eventual confrontation harder. Such is life. Preparation and cleverness do get rewarded in RL, and it breaks immersion if it never is in game.

Tossing the adventure back in the box, and later on using it with some changes, nah. Not railroading. Saying "You HAVE to go here and fight the pirates, and if you try to go anywhere else, well, dammit, there's pirates there too", that's railroading.

Railroading isn't about material reuse...it's about denying player choice.

Aroka
2010-08-16, 07:28 PM
Very, very dangerous, because as mentioned, players can be far more perceptive than they are given credit for. If you do it right, you can weave the story so that it always appears that their actions caused the plot point to happen, even if you had secretly intended said plot point regardless of what actions they ended up taking. If you do it wrong, they'll figure it out and you lose credibility. DMs are story-tellers and referees, but they're also stage magicians, and you never want the audience to see behind the curtain.

There's some cool tricks you can use; for instance, make an encounter dependent on an earlier decision. It doesn't matter which road the PCs take, it matters who they sided with in a feud, or whether they let the villain's minion get away, etc. It's relatively easy to improvise to include "callbacks" to recent events. Just have those random bandits scream "for [dead villain]!" instead of "your money and your life!" when they attack.

But like I said, I prefer to direct PCs with motivation (and also to make sure I know what they're planning to do next session so I can prepare for it rather than stumble along blindly; when I haven't prepared like that, I often feel like I'm trying to get ahead of a speeding car by running...).


The PCs can't be everywhere all the time. Especially if they're the kind of PCs who are never seen apart. And equally, they can't stop a BBEG giving the order to send his armies to the City of the Feeble King so that he can take possession of the Throne of Plot Progress.

Nor can they stop the Feeble King from being manipulated by the Secretly Evil Advisor.

Or rather, they can. But doing so gets them branded as traitors and makes their task all the more difficult.

Things happen off camera. That's why some people suggest the "cutaway" scene. Show the BBEG doing something dramatic at the right moment, even though the PCs can't affect it.

And that's all fine and not railroading at all. If the PCs legitimately can't affect something, either because they lack the skills, the will, the MacGuffin, the knowledge, or simply aren't there, things happen. Railroading is negating agency the PCs do legitimately have.

MarkusWolfe
2010-08-16, 07:30 PM
Very, very dangerous, because as mentioned, players can be far more perceptive than they are given credit for. If you do it right, you can weave the story so that it always appears that their actions caused the plot point to happen, even if you had secretly intended said plot point regardless of what actions they ended up taking. If you do it wrong, they'll figure it out and you lose credibility. DMs are story-tellers and referees, but they're also stage magicians, and you never want the audience to see behind the curtain.

Actually, prefer them to be like bards.....bards that make awesome stories out of stuff the players do. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/7540-Check-for-Traps-It-s-Not-Your-Story) Link provides solutions to most of problems discussed here.

Back to "Schroedinger's Murderer".....let the players hang around the noble lord. The assassin will change his methods and, unless the party can figure out he's poisoned and cure it, not only is the lord dead but the party members are also prime suspects. If your melee character catches the assassin in the act (of knifing the lord in the neck), let him try to capture or kill the assassin, perhaps even stop him from doing the deed. If he fails, he may be viewed with suspicion. Indeed, the assassin may even plant damning evidence on him. If he succeeds, on the other hand, well that means many things. If the assassin was from a clan/organization, they may send more assassins....either to finish the job, or to get revenge on your party. If the assassin is captured alive, he may be held for questioning, manhandling and a whole lot of Intimidate, Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information and Sense Motive checks. The one who hired the assassin might get a little nervous, especially if the lord did not die. If the lord survives the attack due to the actions of your party, he will be extremely grateful, and will probably offer as much information as he can, extensive financial aid, as well as marriage to one of his children if you're up to it.

Was that so hard?

Tyndmyr
2010-08-16, 07:31 PM
And that's all fine and not railroading at all. If the PCs legitimately can't affect something, either because they lack the skills, the will, the MacGuffin, the knowledge, or simply aren't there, things happen. Railroading is negating agency the PCs do legitimately have.

Well said. It's the whole "your abilities don't work now, because I didn't consider them while designing my beautiful plot, so no". The PCs are generally not the most powerful people around, but their actual inability to do certain things yet is not railroading...it's just part of the game.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-16, 07:43 PM
Big Dice - What you are talking about isn't always negative, and there are times for it's use, and reasons to do so. The reasons can even be good ones.


But I'm not sure that's what I or many others understand by the word Railroading. You say several times that you provide the events and so on, and the pc's provide the reaction.

On the ol' Railroad, the PC's don't react, they are reacted for. The PC's don't figure out how to deal with something, they just continue down the prescribed route and course of action. It's not a series of cutscenes followed by you figuring things out and stopping what jumps out to attack you, it's just a film where your character can smile and nod occaisionally.

Often though, when combined with DMPC use, you get to smile and nod while the DM's own character reacts to and solves the situations.

Story-Driven, planned Adventure writing is fine and good and there is definately a time for it. It isn't Railroading, unless it is done spectacularly badly. I think there would be less in the way of awkward disagreements in this thread if we could keep the distinction in mind. :smallsmile:

And I totally thought the adventure in the OP was meant to take place on an actual train for most of the first page.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-16, 07:45 PM
Actually, prefer them to be like bards.....bards that make awesome stories out of stuff the players do. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/7540-Check-for-Traps-It-s-Not-Your-Story) Link provides solutions to most of problems discussed here.

Back to "Schroedinger's Murderer".....let the players hang around the noble lord. The assassin will change his methods and, unless the party can figure out he's poisoned and cure it, not only is the lord dead but the party members are also prime suspects. If your melee character catches the assassin in the act (of knifing the lord in the neck), let him try to capture or kill the assassin, perhaps even stop him from doing the deed. If he fails, he may be viewed with suspicion. Indeed, the assassin may even plant damning evidence on him. If he succeeds, on the other hand, well that means many things. If the assassin was from a clan/organization, they may send more assassins....either to finish the job, or to get revenge on your party. If the assassin is captured alive, he may be held for questioning, manhandling and a whole lot of Intimidate, Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information and Sense Motive checks. The one who hired the assassin might get a little nervous, especially if the lord did not die. If the lord survives the attack due to the actions of your party, he will be extremely grateful, and will probably offer as much information as he can, extensive financial aid, as well as marriage to one of his children if you're up to it.

Was that so hard?

An excellent idea, if you're prepared for it. Myself, I build story-trees of different outcomes depending on key events (such as the assassination's success or not). If you're someone who hasn't done that much contingency planning, though, I wouldn't necessarily call you a Bad GM. If the players inadvertantly get in the way of your intended murder method and you're not good at improvising on the spot (me, I'm horrible at it), your options boil down to
A) Blatant railroading by forcing the murder through (the invincible assassin)
B) Rearranging the plot to cause the murder more subtly (the poison)
C) Tell the group "Sorry guys, let's take a break, I hadn't planned for this" or even "Well, I totally hadn't expected this, let's go play Brawl and continue next week".

A) is just plain wrong, and that's when you become a Bad GM.
C) is a valid option, and often a good one. Sometimes it's not though, in extreme circumstances (say, a group that meets once a month...unlikely, but possible.
B) is, by a strict definition, railroading. If you're one of those extreme circumstances, though, it can be preferable, and if you're a good enough magician, the players will never know. And you can always drop to C) anyways if the players still manage to foil your plot (say, by curing the poison in time).

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-16, 08:00 PM
Actually, I'd say that the "Switch to poison" thing isn't even really railroading. Assuming the hitman wasn't the main villain, the man who actually wants the target dead, then surely they will try again.

They've already gone so far as to hire an Assassin. You think they are going to let bygones be bygones because some chumps threw the assassin out of a window?

As long as it's just another attempt, not an auto-success, it's all logical consequences I'd have thought.

And a second chance for the people involved to leave traces of their identity.

Aroka
2010-08-16, 08:07 PM
Actually, I'd say that the "Switch to poison" thing isn't even really railroading. Assuming the hitman wasn't the main villain, the man who actually wants the target dead, then surely they will try again.

They've already gone so far as to hire an Assassin. You think they are going to let bygones be bygones because some chumps threw the assassin out of a window?

As long as it's just another attempt, not an auto-success, it's all logical consequences I'd have thought.

And a second chance for the people involved to leave traces of their identity.

Hah, yes. To hell with the old trope where a plan is bizarrely abandoned just because it fails once. (There's probably a TVTropes article on that.)

The Big Dice
2010-08-16, 08:26 PM
Big Dice - What you are talking about isn't always negative, and there are times for it's use, and reasons to do so. The reasons can even be good ones.


But I'm not sure that's what I or many others understand by the word Railroading. You say several times that you provide the events and so on, and the pc's provide the reaction.
I take a view that some people might think is a bit weird. My thought process tends to lead me to places that other minds find to be odd and thought provoking at best, downright wrong and heretical at worst.

To most roleplayers, railroading is a Bad Thing. It's the gaming equivalent of mind control. Insidious and difficult to fight.

To me, railroading is anything that takes absolute freedom of choice away from the players. But it doesn't have to take self control from them. They choose to get on the train, I control where it goes. That's why I say it doesn't have to be the negative that most people assume it to be. It's simply another device, GM shorthand for "This needs to happen, so it will happen."

Tyndmyr
2010-08-16, 08:33 PM
Actually, I'd say that the "Switch to poison" thing isn't even really railroading. Assuming the hitman wasn't the main villain, the man who actually wants the target dead, then surely they will try again.

They've already gone so far as to hire an Assassin. You think they are going to let bygones be bygones because some chumps threw the assassin out of a window?

As long as it's just another attempt, not an auto-success, it's all logical consequences I'd have thought.

And a second chance for the people involved to leave traces of their identity.

This. Treat NPCs as real people. If his plan would reasonably involve him learning of the PCs presence(not a bad bet), trying something stealthy instead is hardly illogical.

Railroading is when the assassin and BBEG doesn't deviate from his prepared plan at all, but the player precautions are just ignored and have no effect.

Aroka
2010-08-16, 08:48 PM
To most roleplayers, railroading is a Bad Thing. It's the gaming equivalent of mind control. Insidious and difficult to fight.

To me, railroading is anything that takes absolute freedom of choice away from the players. But it doesn't have to take self control from them. They choose to get on the train, I control where it goes. That's why I say it doesn't have to be the negative that most people assume it to be. It's simply another device, GM shorthand for "This needs to happen, so it will happen."

This makes discussing the term very difficult, since you intentionally use the word to mean something other than everyone else does, but seem to argue as if they used the word to mean the same thing as you do, but had a different opinion about the thing.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-16, 09:28 PM
Perhaps Dice needs a new buzz-word?

What do you feel about 'Coach-Tripping', Big Dice? It's quite like catching a train, but they let you off to look around every now and again, provided you are back on the bus by the agreed time?

:smallwink:

The Big Dice
2010-08-16, 09:35 PM
This makes discussing the term very difficult, since you intentionally use the word to mean something other than everyone else does, but seem to argue as if they used the word to mean the same thing as you do, but had a different opinion about the thing.

Discussing the term is very simple. Railroading is taking choice away from players, as I've said before. The difference is, I see that it doesn't have to take control of the character away from the player.

Most people only see one side of the coin, I see both.

Yes, being railroaded into doing something you didn't choose to do can be very frustrating, especially when it's turning you into an observer in the game you're playing. But used properly, rails are an extremely effective means of moving a plot forwards.

Try looking at it in these terms: what's the difference between your GM telling you what's going to happen and no matter what you do it's not going to have an effect and your GM narrowing your options down to the point where you only have one choice?

Tyndmyr
2010-08-16, 09:41 PM
The way you are using the word makes little sense.

It's not about removing any choice. It's about removing ALL choice.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 09:53 PM
@The Big Dice

Try looking at it in these terms: what's the difference between your GM telling you what's going to happen and no matter what you do it's not going to have an effect and your GM narrowing your options down to the point where you only have one choice?
If the DM is telling you what is going to happen and your characters wouldn't normally be able to do anything about it - fine.

If the DM is telling you what is going to happen regardless of what your characters do - it's railroading; bad railroading

Macro and Micro -autonomy isn't sophistry; it's descriptive. All too often I hear "I let the dice life as they may" (micro-autonomy) as the call for giving players choice. But if the dice rolls are later circumvented in the name of the plot - the duke will always die in the end; the cult will always get its MacGuffins together - then you are depriving the players of the important autonomy, macro-autonomy.

I make this distinction because both forms of autonomy are important. Allowing the PCs to make small changes doesn't make it OK when other choices are unjustly taken from them.

Nobody is arguing the DM can't set up a plot, but placing "false choices" in front of the PCs is poor storytelling at best, and disheartening at the worst. Either don't present them as choices (i.e. the duke is already dead) or only present the PCs with choices if they are able to make them.

Also - if you're going to use the language of rhetoric, please explain. Merely calling something "sophistry" or a "straw man" without explaining what you mean makes it seem less an attack on the argument more as flavor thrown into a post.
Ultimately this is a matter of taste. Having just come from a game where my actions had little bearing on the plot, I can tell you it's no fun being on a train, even if you get to roll lots of dice.

Aroka
2010-08-16, 10:13 PM
Discussing the term is very simple. Railroading is taking choice away from players, as I've said before. The difference is, I see that it doesn't have to take control of the character away from the player.

But that's a broader definition than most others allow - I know my definition is considerably narrower. In fact, your definition seems so broad it's useless. Tyndmyr clearly disagrees with your definition; Oracle_Hunter and Umael seem to, too.

Umael
2010-08-17, 12:28 AM
But that's a broader definition than most others allow - I know my definition is considerably narrower. In fact, your definition seems so broad it's useless. Tyndmyr clearly disagrees with your definition; Oracle_Hunter and Umael seem to, too.

You would be correct.

I know I hail from the "Railroading bad" camp. Narrow definition, strictly negative.

...and if I am following this thread correctly... I might be needing to apologize to Tyndmyr.

MarkusWolfe
2010-08-17, 11:20 AM
Perhaps Dice needs a new buzz-word?

What do you feel about 'Coach-Tripping', Big Dice? It's quite like catching a train, but they let you off to look around every now and again, provided you are back on the bus by the agreed time?

:smallwink:

That sounds far more reasonable than railroading. Not sure if it would have enough macro autonomy to please every player in the world, but a skilled DM could certainly squeeze in however much micro is required.

The Big Dice
2010-08-17, 04:55 PM
People usually disagree with my thoughts on these kind of things. The difference is, I don't see a difference between micro and macro autonomy, there is only autonomy. I don't see that there's a difference between removing any choice and removing all choice. There's just removing choice.

I also think that players who approach the game with a sense of entitlement, that they deserve to gain WBL and face nothing but CL appropriate encounters are missing the point. That's what you could call reverse railroading, players blackmailing the GM to give them what they want.

A good GM should always give his players what they want, just not always in the way that they want it.

To my mind, railroading is much bigger, much more complex and much more insidious than simply leading player around by their noses. I admit that sometimes I overthink things, but to me, there's no difference between being told how my character will react in a given situation and a GM deliberately fudging dice rolls just to preserve the life of my character.

It's the same thing, it's the GM manipulating a situation to get a result despite what the player wants, or what happens to the character. It's cheating. And worse, it's not the kind of cheating that all GMs should do.

Every GM should cheat in favour of making the game better for everyone involved. And not just little fudging rolls here and there, great big cheas that would have your players going :smallfurious: if they knew about them.

But that's something for another time.

For now, it's enough to say that I take a somewhat broader and more technical view of railroading, and I don't think it's the evil that it gets painted as. It often gets handled clumsily, and that's what makes it look bad, but really it's quite an important part of a GM's bag of tricks.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-17, 06:33 PM
People usually disagree with my thoughts on these kind of things. The difference is, I don't see a difference between micro and macro autonomy, there is only autonomy. I don't see that there's a difference between removing any choice and removing all choice. There's just removing choice.

I also think that players who approach the game with a sense of entitlement, that they deserve to gain WBL and face nothing but CL appropriate encounters are missing the point. That's what you could call reverse railroading, players blackmailing the GM to give them what they want.

A good GM should always give his players what they want, just not always in the way that they want it.

To my mind, railroading is much bigger, much more complex and much more insidious than simply leading player around by their noses. I admit that sometimes I overthink things, but to me, there's no difference between being told how my character will react in a given situation and a GM deliberately fudging dice rolls just to preserve the life of my character.

It's the same thing, it's the GM manipulating a situation to get a result despite what the player wants, or what happens to the character. It's cheating. And worse, it's not the kind of cheating that all GMs should do.

Every GM should cheat in favour of making the game better for everyone involved. And not just little fudging rolls here and there, great big cheas that would have your players going :smallfurious: if they knew about them.

But that's something for another time.

For now, it's enough to say that I take a somewhat broader and more technical view of railroading, and I don't think it's the evil that it gets painted as. It often gets handled clumsily, and that's what makes it look bad, but really it's quite an important part of a GM's bag of tricks.

Would you be willing to concede that the much, much more narrow and simple definition of Railroading is usually a negative thing?
I'd be interested to hear your answer.

AslanCross
2010-08-17, 06:48 PM
I'm not exactly a fan of sandbox either, and I only consider something railroading if the PCs are not allowed any meaningful ways of accomplishing the goals they have set out to accomplish.

However, the "powerful NPCs" thing is something risky and if it's going to be "about the story," I suggest writing a story instead of running a game. Whether the adventure has a plot or is a sandbox, the PCs should still be the center of the action.

Raum
2010-08-17, 07:16 PM
On definitions - one of the most succinct I've seen is:
"Railroading is when the plot has player immunity."

When it comes to play, there are going to be invisible walls (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InvisibleWall) somewhere. In Sandbox play they're simply very far apart, possibly even encompassing entire multiverses. Scripted (or Railroaded) play puts those walls much closer together. What GM and players both need to recognize is simply that meaningful game play is only possible between the walls. The narrower they are, the smaller the playing field. Whether that is good or bad is entirely dependent on the group of players...if the playing field is big enough to keep them happy there are seldom any problems related to railroading. However, when players are continually bouncing off those invisible walls the GM needs to recognize that and change the game accordingly.

The Big Dice
2010-08-17, 08:44 PM
Would you be willing to concede that the much, much more narrow and simple definition of Railroading is usually a negative thing?
I'd be interested to hear your answer.
That's the definition that I started with, understanding the term in the same way as most people. Then I realised that a game I was in was basically on rails, as in the GM was performing backflips to keep the story he wanted to tell on track. That was when I came to the conclusion that railroading doesn't have to be bad.


On definitions - one of the most succinct I've seen is:

When it comes to play, there are going to be invisible walls (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InvisibleWall) somewhere. In Sandbox play they're simply very far apart, possibly even encompassing entire multiverses. Scripted (or Railroaded) play puts those walls much closer together. What GM and players both need to recognize is simply that meaningful game play is only possible between the walls. The narrower they are, the smaller the playing field. Whether that is good or bad is entirely dependent on the group of players...if the playing field is big enough to keep them happy there are seldom any problems related to railroading. However, when players are continually bouncing off those invisible walls the GM needs to recognize that and change the game accordingly.
The thing is, all play takes place between walls of some kind or another. They might seem to be vague and far away, or they could be as solid and in your face as the walls of a dungeon.

In fact, I'd say the dungeon is a good metaphor for my thoughts on railroading. On the surface, it looks like players have total freedom of choice. But in reality, your options are highly constrained and events are only going to take place when the PCs get close enough to them. In other words, it's a textbook example of railroading. But not in a bad way.

In fact you could probably go as far as to say that rather than rebranding railroading as something else, I consider it to be a null term. It's so fundamental to the roleplaying experience that it's up there with dice and paper.

In other words, not worth mentioning.

I'm not exactly a fan of sandbox either, and I only consider something railroading if the PCs are not allowed any meaningful ways of accomplishing the goals they have set out to accomplish.

However, the "powerful NPCs" thing is something risky and if it's going to be "about the story," I suggest writing a story instead of running a game. Whether the adventure has a plot or is a sandbox, the PCs should still be the center of the action.
A good friend of mine once said "If you want to tell a story, go write a book" as a response to a heavily scripted game.

Aroka
2010-08-17, 08:47 PM
The thing is, all play takes place between walls of some kind or another. They might seem to be vague and far away, or they could be as solid and in your face as the walls of a dungeon.

That's exactly what Raum said in the bit you quoted?


In fact you could probably go as far as to say that rather than rebranding railroading as something else, I consider it to be a null term. It's so fundamental to the roleplaying experience that it's up there with dice and paper.

How does that make sense? Railroading has a very definite, very negative meaning; why should the perfectly useful and well-understood term for it be abandoned? You'd have to come up with a new one for railroading.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 08:51 PM
...and if I am following this thread correctly... I might be needing to apologize to Tyndmyr.

Eh, no worries. Misunderstanding is always more likely online. I've certainly done it myself plenty.


Every GM should cheat in favour of making the game better for everyone involved. And not just little fudging rolls here and there, great big cheas that would have your players going :smallfurious: if they knew about them.

I disagree with this. If it's something you know would outright make your players angry with you...don't do it. "oh, but I wont get caught" is a terrible excuse.

I take this to the other extreme...I roll all dice in public when DMing. Now, not every DM does this, and you don't have to, but be aware that if you cheat on a frequent basis on anything, your players will eventually figure it out. If it's something like knocking a coupla hp off the damage to avoid a death, it's probably not a big deal to them unless it happens often enough to make a mockery of death. However, if it's something large enough to make them actually angry...you suddenly have a problem on your hands.



And yes, let's stick to the commonly accepted definition of railroading. Words are only meaningful if we all use them for the same thing.

Volos
2010-08-17, 09:07 PM
Everytime they try to go somewhere they shouldn't, put a terrasque in their path. Or a flying terrasque. That will teach em.

The Big Dice
2010-08-17, 09:10 PM
How does that make sense? Railroading has a very definite, very negative meaning; why should the perfectly useful and well-understood term for it be abandoned? You'd have to come up with a new one for railroading.
Like I said, railroading is a null term. It gets thrown around by people who aren't that experienced or confident. At least more often than not it does. It's an accusation rather than a useful term. The fact that different people have a different understanding of what the term means says a lot. It's so vague and ill defined that it may as well mean "I don't like the direction this game is taking."

I disagree with this. If it's something you know would outright make your players angry with you...don't do it. "oh, but I wont get caught" is a terrible excuse.
What do you do when you have a run of crits against the party? It's all too easy to have a TPK in the first encounter of your exquisitely plotted campaign if you roll everything in public. And in the same vein, what do you do when your players one round kill the BBEG you've been bigging up for the last six weeks of play?

The answer is, you cheat. You cheat extravagantly, but only to make the game more fun for the people playing it. If it's that or a huge anticlimax, you'll cheat.


And yes, let's stick to the commonly accepted definition of railroading. Words are only meaningful if we all use them for the same thing.
The problem with an accepted definition of railroading is, there are so (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/RPG_Lexica:PQR) many (http://www.gnomestew.com/tools-for-gms/gnomenclature-a-diminutive-rpg-glossary#r) different (http://www.therpghaven.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=816&sid=b8c4c73055ff21cbef86ab051e509324) definitions. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/248683-whats-wrong-railroad.html)

Raum
2010-08-17, 10:06 PM
The thing is, all play takes place between walls of some kind or another. They might seem to be vague and far away, or they could be as solid and in your face as the walls of a dungeon.:smallconfused: Yes...this is what I said. Not sure I can agree with your subsequent conclusion though...
In fact, I'd say the dungeon is a good metaphor for my thoughts on railroading. On the surface, it looks like players have total freedom of choice. How does that follow? There usually isn't much freedom of choice in a dungeon...


But in reality, your options are highly constrained and events are only going to take place when the PCs get close enough to them. In other words, it's a textbook example of railroading. But not in a bad way.

In fact you could probably go as far as to say that rather than rebranding railroading as something else, I consider it to be a null term. It's so fundamental to the roleplaying experience that it's up there with dice and paper.

In other words, not worth mentioning.Whether you want to mention the term or not, GMs do need to be aware of how much freedom of choice players expect. When the walls start constricting more than they're comfortable with, that term tends to come up.


A good friend of mine once said "If you want to tell a story, go write a book" as a response to a heavily scripted game.A sentiment I agree with. :smallwink:

In general, games will fall somewhere within a spectrum ranging from Scripted to Sandbox. The 'Railroad' term isn't 'null', it's simply a pejorative for games closer to the Scripted side of the spectrum than players enjoy. The number of differing definitions stems from each player drawing that line in differing areas of the spectrum.