Linear Storytelling Vs. Railroading

[AMFV]

Howdy, folks, a recent thread got me thinking about where railroading ends and where storytelling begins. Essentially where the distinction is between a story with a predetermined outcome (such as an adventure path), and a railroaded outcome.

For the purpose of this discussion we should probably define the railroad more precisely, I'm defining it as a game where the players are not allowed to make decisions that deviate from those planned by the DM. For example the hallway with locked doors that can't be opened, or bypassed by any means, at all. Although I'm open to discussion on this point, because it's the point of the thread after all.

My question is as follows: Where do you guys draw the line, at what point does something become railroading as opposed to linear storytelling?

[Aliquid]

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to say "this is the goal of the campaign". Such as "stop the villain", "save the hostages", "find the lost treasure"

The problem is when the DM doesn't give the players choice in how to achieve that goal.

Also, be careful when you say "predetermined outcome", that sounds a bit railroadish to me. Maybe the predetermined outcome you have in your mind is that the characters kill the villain. Well what if they come up with a different clever solution to stopping the villain without actually killing him? Don't be too predetermined.

[Red Fel]

Howdy, folks, a recent thread got me thinking about where railroading ends and where storytelling begins. Essentially where the distinction is between a story with a predetermined outcome (such as an adventure path), and a railroaded outcome.

For the purpose of this discussion we should probably define the railroad more precisely, I'm defining it as a game where the players are not allowed to make decisions that deviate from those planned by the DM. For example the hallway with locked doors that can't be opened, or bypassed by any means, at all. Although I'm open to discussion on this point, because it's the point of the thread after all.

My question is as follows: Where do you guys draw the line, at what point does something become railroading as opposed to linear storytelling?

The difference between linear storytelling and railroading is the PCs' involvement. By way of example, let's say the story is this: A demonic invasion will happen on the New Year.

If the story will happen in a certain way, and the PCs can get involved and influence it to a certain degree, or ignore it entirely, that's linear storytelling. A demonic invasion will happen on the New Year, and the PCs can either gear up and gather an army to fight it off, or hop around every pub on the coast, their call. A linear story happens irrespective of PC actions, although the PCs can steer or redirect it in certain ways, or even ignore it entirely. Heck, creative enough PCs can figure out a way to channel the demonic invasion, say by making the portal appear in an enemy kingdom, or over an active volcano. You can have certain key events happen, but leave the details up to the PCs, if they care to be involved at all. That's a linear story.

If the story will happen in a certain way, and the PCs will be involved in a particular capacity irrespective of their actions or choices, that's railroading. A demonic invasion will happen on the New Year, because one of the PCs broke the seal, another one received the mark, and a third one spoke the words, at specific times and places. Does it matter if the PCs don't want to be in that place at that time doing that thing? Nope, they will be there, because the story demands it. The PCs will be where you want, and when, doing what you want; that's railroading.

Now, in some ways, a linear story is railroading-lite. That's because the nature of a linear story presumes certain key events which must happen. That means that even if the PCs can have some impact, they cannot completely negate a key event. But the important thing to remember is that some lines are continuous, but others are simply a series of points. As long as the points happen to some degree, the rest of the details can (and should) be mutable. More importantly, a campaign that tells a story does not require the PCs to be at the center of that story. Life goes on outside of the PCs' awareness, after all; if they're absent for it, that doesn't mean the invasion gets postponed.

Distinguish both from a sandbox game, where the PCs can completely subvert the story if they choose - cancel the invasion entirely, for example.

[AMFV]

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to say "this is the goal of the campaign". Such as "stop the villain", "save the hostages", "find the lost treasure"

The problem is when the DM doesn't give the players choice in how to achieve that goal.

Also, be careful when you say "predetermined outcome", that sounds a bit railroadish to me. Maybe the predetermined outcome you have in your mind is that the characters kill the villain. Well what if they come up with a different clever solution to stopping the villain without actually killing him? Don't be too predetermined.

Well to be fair, I was using Adventure Paths as the example for "predetermined outcome" and those need to end at least in the same ballpark as you'd expect since they lead into the next adventure.

[Geddy2112]

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to say "this is the goal of the campaign". Such as "stop the villain", "save the hostages", "find the lost treasure"
The problem is when the DM doesn't give the players choice in how to achieve that goal.

This. A very broad goal, story, whatnot that could be achieved a multitude of different ways. Campaigns, adventures, etc would not be stories if the party never went anywhere or did anything. So most games will tell a story in a more or less linear fashion
If the basis of the campaign is to get to New York from Los Angeles, the party chooses how, their reasons why, and what they do along the way to overcome setbacks, challenges, etc. They might be rich enough to buy a plane ticket and that's that. Maybe the story is about how a bunch of broke young adults hitchhiked their way with the help of a crazy old blind person. Maybe they rode bikes for charity. Maybe they actually took a train. It is railroading when the DM says their only choice is the train.

Railroading can also be the illusion of choice-saying they have other choices but fiating the results to force the party on the train is railroading. Now, certainly some choices can and should be harder or perhaps impossible: in the previous example, it is more dangerous to hitchhike across the country than to take an airplane flight. It is impossible for a human to flap their arms and take flight across the country. Having impossible options and options with scaling difficulty is not railroading.

It does not matter the destination, but that the PC's can choose how and why they get there. When the PC's cannot choose how and why they get there, it is railroading.

[Anonymouswizard]

For example the hallway with locked doors that can't be opened, or bypassed by any means, at all.

Still not as annoying as the door that can only be opened in one specific way, and can't be looted.


My opinion on the divide is 'all roads lead to Rome' versus 'this is the van we are using to take to Rome baka'. So even if everything will lead to the same event, but the specific details of the event change (like say Bob the NPC needs to speak the specific words for the Demonic Invasion instead of Dave the NPC, or Geoff the madman being the final boss instead of Derek the planner) then it's linear storytelling (note, this is why I don't even know where the invasion will happen until the session starts, I just have the plan for the scene). If the PCs have to go to a specific place and do specific things or else the game stonewalls, than choo choo!

[BRC]

My line has always been "Railroading is not saying "There is a wall here", Railroading is saying "There is a wall everywhere BUT here""

To expand on that: Unless the campaign was pitched that way, a GM need not be running a pure sandbox game. A GM need not indulge every player's whim, making all potential goals and plans equally viable.

What it really comes down to is what makes sense within the narrative that has been provided. Railroading happens when things that SHOULD make sense don't because it does not fit with the GM's plan.



Picture this: The Players are being held prisoner for a crime they did not commit. They are being held by an otherwise lawful good society. The GM did not actually establish very compelling evidence against the PCs

The GM wants to do a big trial scene, ending with the players being Convicted, and sent to kill a dragon as community service.

First, the PC's try to talk to the investigators, making the argument that the evidence against them is not enough to warrant a trial. This SHOULD make sense, because there isn't much evidence against the PCs. But the GM insists that the Investigators refuse to be swayed, and the PC's must stand trail.

Then, the PC's decide to break out of jail. The GM insists that it's impossible. They are all held in unbreakable cells with unpickable locks and anti-magic fields. Every day a powerful spellcasting Warden comes by and casts an unresistible Suggestion on them to sit still and await trial. Despite the kingdom in question not being especially rich, powerful, or known for magic.

Then, the Trial arrives. Once again, the PC's plead their case, the evidence against them is far from conclusive, they roll well, they make good arguments. Nope, the Magistrates cannot be swayed, The PC's are found Guilty, and sent to kill a dragon as community service.

Then, The PC's decide "Screw this society, let's go off", but no, the judge placed them all under a Geas. They MUST go kill the dragon.

Then, the PC's decide to set up an ambush outside the Dragon's lair, when it emerges to attack the kingdom (Which has powerful wizards apparently, but can't use them to fight a dragon), they'll bring it down, rather than trying to storm it's lair. NOPE, the GM says. A Bunch of Knights from the kingdom escort you to the mouth of the Lair and push you inside.
"We fight the Knights"
They defeat you easily, heal you back to full, then push you inside.

Now, there are things about this scenario that is NOT railroading. For example, the Investigators could be unwilling to release the PC's because, in this society, once the Warrant is issued, the investigators can't release somebody without a trial, even if they are later convinced that the person is innocent. That makes sense.

The Judge may have found the PC's guilty, not because he believed it was so, but because they needed somebody to go kill the dragon. That makes sense.


It however does not make sense that the Judge is a powerful Wizard who cannot fight off the dragon. It does not make sense that the kingdom can spare elite knights to walk the PC's to the dragon's lair, but not to fight the Dragon itself. It also makes no sense that the Kingdom would reject the PC's plan to ambush the dragon.

All those things happened, not as a logical outcome of the situation and the PC's choices, but because the GM wanted certain things to happen. THAT is railroading.

[Florian]

Linear Storytelling builds on participation of the players. You declare a goal and everybody plays along. It is teamwork.

Railroading and its couson, illusionism, ignore what players want but force them to participate. It is acceptance.

[Flickerdart]

I'd say that railroading and linear storytelling are not even the same sort of thing.

Linear storytelling is when you tell your players "the wizard asks you to kill the dragon" and then they go kill the dragon like you intended, and that leads into another plot about the consequences of the dragon dying that you prepared.

Railroading is when the players say "but we like dragons, we fight the wizard instead" and you say no, you will stay on the story track.

A game can have a linear story and no railroading. This is a game where the players are 100% on board with what's going on and they either bite the plot hook or take no initiative and let the plot carry them between scenes.

A game can have a non-linear story and railroading. This is a game where the PCs can do anything, but what they do doesn't matter. The PCs can fight the resurrection of the demon king by drumming up an army, infiltrating the cult, getting the gods on their side, whatever - when the time comes, they will fail no matter what.

[AMFV]

As a fair warning the posts I'm quoting below are going to be considerably truncated due to the amount of them, so I hope you guys don't mind that too much. Additionally there will be a fair bit of advocating for the devil here, because I think there's some stuff I'd like to see discussed, as such the opinions I present may not be ones that I hold.

...
Now, in some ways, a linear story is railroading-lite. That's because the nature of a linear story presumes certain key events which must happen. That means that even if the PCs can have some impact, they cannot completely negate a key event. But the important thing to remember is that some lines are continuous, but others are simply a series of points. As long as the points happen to some degree, the rest of the details can (and should) be mutable. More importantly, a campaign that tells a story does not require the PCs to be at the center of that story. Life goes on outside of the PCs' awareness, after all; if they're absent for it, that doesn't mean the invasion gets postponed. ...

I like these examples quite a bit. My question is what point would you say over-reliance on the linearity of the story is a problem. For example let's say the players decide to thwart the invasion at any cost. If they are expending all of their time and resources on it, would it be a bad thing to have them fail? After all, stories often do involve set-backs.

The other thing is that the railroading option seems to have the players significantly more involved in the plot. How would you feel about a DM asking if the players minded that pre-game. For example: "For this story, I'd like if somebody was the chosen one, somebody had spoken the words, and somebody had done the other thing at some point in their backstory," thus making the ties to the plot more complete, but not forcing the players in game to something.

...
Now, there are things about this scenario that is NOT railroading. For example, the Investigators could be unwilling to release the PC's because, in this society, once the Warrant is issued, the investigators can't release somebody without a trial, even if they are later convinced that the person is innocent. That makes sense.

The Judge may have found the PC's guilty, not because he believed it was so, but because they needed somebody to go kill the dragon. That makes sense.


It however does not make sense that the Judge is a powerful Wizard who cannot fight off the dragon. It does not make sense that the kingdom can spare elite knights to walk the PC's to the dragon's lair, but not to fight the Dragon itself. It also makes no sense that the Kingdom would reject the PC's plan to ambush the dragon.

All those things happened, not as a logical outcome of the situation and the PC's choices, but because the GM wanted certain things to happen. THAT is railroading.

So you feel that if the DM developed adequete explanations for those things it might not be railroading. For example: "The town and the knights are bound by treaty not to interfere with the dragon, which is why they would send the players", or a similar example for the ambush scenario?

So is it the absence of logic that makes it negative railroading for you?

I'd say that railroading and linear storytelling are not even the same sort of thing.

Linear storytelling is when you tell your players "the wizard asks you to kill the dragon" and then they go kill the dragon like you intended, and that leads into another plot about the consequences of the dragon dying that you prepared.

Railroading is when the players say "but we like dragons, we fight the wizard instead" and you say no, you will stay on the story track.

Is it still railroading though if you wind up with the same outcome, say the players kill the wizard, then you have the dragon attack? It's the same restriction in scenarios, the players ARE fighting the dragon, whether or not they want to, but they weren't pushed to it the same way.

A game can have a linear story and no railroading. This is a game where the players are 100% on board with what's going on and they either bite the plot hook or take no initiative and let the plot carry them between scenes.

A game can have a non-linear story and railroading. This is a game where the PCs can do anything, but what they do doesn't matter. The PCs can fight the resurrection of the demon king by drumming up an army, infiltrating the cult, getting the gods on their side, whatever - when the time comes, they will fail no matter what.

So you think the key difference is in pliability of outcome, rather than the middle ground?

[Flickerdart]

Is it still railroading though if you wind up with the same outcome, say the players kill the wizard, then you have the dragon attack? It's the same restriction in scenarios, the players ARE fighting the dragon, whether or not they want to, but they weren't pushed to it the same way.

I think so. "You can't" vs "you can but you fail to prevent the thing no matter what" is pretty much the same thing.

[AMFV]

I think so. "You can't" vs "you can but you fail to prevent the thing no matter what" is pretty much the same thing.

So what if the DM has a planned setback as a story point, rather than as the end of the story. Would it be improved if the player's efforts affected how things happened after the setback?

[LnGrrrR]

If you have mature players, then they'll just make a new plot. One that will likely work out better than the one you proposed, since it's one they're interested in too. (This is why I spend my research time figuring out areas, characters, etc than making a "Point A to Point B to Point C" scenario.) Of course, sometimes you get players who end up saying things like, "Instead of saving the princess, let's go wander around the countryside and get drunk!" And then when they do that, they get robbed a troll in the woods who heard them singing loudly. If they continue to mess with the "expected" plot, then you can have an OOC conversation about what they're looking for and whether or not it suits your playstyle as a DM.

[Aliquid]

So what if the DM has a planned setback as a story point, rather than as the end of the story. Would it be improved if the player's efforts affected how things happened after the setback?

If you have the story mapped out in your head... and part of the story requires the party to fail at something, then you are heading into the territory of railroading.

There are a lot of creative players out there... and there is a good chance one of them will come up with a creative solution to avoiding the "predetermined fail". When that happens, the DM is forced to railroad the players into failure anyway, because the plot demands it.

[AMFV]

If you have the story mapped out in your head... and part of the story requires the party to fail at something, then you are heading into the territory of railroading.

There are a lot of creative players out there... and there is a good chance one of them will come up with a creative solution to avoiding the "predetermined fail". When that happens, the DM is forced to railroad the players into failure anyway, because the plot demands it.

There doesn't necessarily have to be a solution to any particular problem though. Depending on what the failure is. In BRC's scenario there are many places where a clever player could get out of it (by escaping prison, legal loopholes, negotiating with the dragon, seducing the judge etc.) Whereas for example the demon army popping up, may or may not have a solution to it. The larger scale an event is, the less likely it is that the players will simply be able to circumvent it.

So are all large scale events railroading? If there's a war, the player's would not be able to affect much except for the parts of it they touch (which might have a big effect, but likely wouldn't be able to shift everything). Natural disasters, are those railroading? There are after-all, no mechanical ways (in most systems) to stop a volcano.

So, at what point does having a pre-planned setback become railroading. Let's say I have the demon army popping up as a scenario, and the players try several things to stop it, but none of them work. Is it railroading, only if no options at all would have worked? And if so, is that unacceptable?

As a note: my personal belief, is that including no-win situations in the game, is perfectly fine, as long as they aren't constant, and aren't final.

[BRC]

So you feel that if the DM developed adequete explanations for those things it might not be railroading. For example: "The town and the knights are bound by treaty not to interfere with the dragon, which is why they would send the players", or a similar example for the ambush scenario?

So is it the absence of logic that makes it negative railroading for you?

The absence of logic is what separates Railroading from Obstacles.

Remember, a DM is not railroading just because they refuse to cater to every whim.

If the Players decide to enter a castle via a secret entrance, one that has never been mentioned, and they have no reason to believe exists, the DM is not railroading just because they don't add a secret door at the random spot the PC's look for one.



But, I suppose you are right. It is possible for a DM to create an internally consistent, logical scenario that still forces the PC's along a single path. That, however, is rare. Most Railroading DM's don't set out with the intent to railroad. They make a plan, then react badly when the players deviate from it, attempting to force the players back onto the rails. This often leads to illogical and inconsistent features (Like a legion of unbeatable elite knights forcing some 4th level adventurers to go kill a dragon for them).

Usually, a DM good enough to create a scenario that logically forces the players into a single path is also good enough to realize that would be railroading, and not do it.

So no, a lack of logic is not what defines Railroading, but it is both an early sign, and one of the worst effects.

Consider this scenario. You have an ancient tomb full of evil undead. The Tomb consists of an entrance, and three chambers, each connected to the previous.

Entrance=[ Chamber 1]=[Chamber 2]=[Chamber 3]

A low level party only really has one option. Enter the tomb, fight the undead in chamber 1. Fight the undead in chamber 2. Fight the undead in chamber 3.

The PC's could try to, say, go above where Chamber 3 would be, and dig down, but the DM informs them that it would take weeks to carve through the earth and stone above the tomb. They could try to sneak into the tomb, but so many undead eyes (With darkvision) makes that plan unfeasible.

Now, consider a low-level party attacking a bandit camp in the woods. The DM wants them to attack the gatehouse, then the barracks, then the bandit chief's tent. He shuts down any attempt to create another approach. They can't attack from the side, they can't scale the walls, they can't cause a diversion, they can't enter in disguise, they MUST launch a frontal assault on the gatehouse.

Both these scenarios are technically "Railroading", in that the DM has created a scenario in which the players have only one valid option. But, while most players will accept the occasional three-chambered tomb, the impregnable Bandit Camp is going to ruffle a lot more feathers


Which brings us back to the original question. What is the difference between "Railroading" and "Linear Storytelling"? Nothing we can measure and put into a box.
Some players will accept being led by the nose, others will chafe at anything except a pure sandbox.

But, in the end, what matters is not whether a DM is "Railroading" or just telling a story with a bit of a plan. What matters is how it affects the game. And the most common symptom of railroading is a loss of suspension of disbelief.

The second symptom is a loss of player enthusiasm for the game, as they no longer feel that their decisions, actions, or even dice rolls can have any meaningful impact on the story.

The reason I use the first symptom as my guide post is that it shows up a lot faster. As soon as the DM starts twisting the world to force the PC's down their predetermined path, suspension of disbelief starts breaking down. If the DM is willing to sacrifice the consistency of the game world in order to force the PCs down a specific path, then that's a clear sign that they are not going to let the players have any real agency in the story.

The second symptom, loss of enthusiasm, takes longer to manifest on it's own. Unless the players have a very low tolerance for railroading, it usually takes a while before they see the pattern and realize that, no, the DM is never going to let them make any meaningful decisions.


Edit:

Although, I suppose there is one solid test. But, like most tests, you don't know for sure unless you do it in earnest.

The Test is this: How does the DM respond if the players ignore the plot hook and move on. The town is being threatened by Ogres, so the PC's decide to leave.

A railroading DM tries to stop them. A non-Railroading DM says "Okay. You leave. A few days later you hear that the town has been sacked by Ogres."

[Anonymouswizard]

As a note: my personal belief, is that including no-win situations in the game, is perfectly fine, as long as they aren't constant, and aren't final.

I'm the opposite. After a session or two I will lie, I will beg, I will trick, but I will not cheat in order to get my players to the outcome, and a no-win situation is cheating to me.

A situation the players can't fully influence is fine. Maybe the most the can do is cause a cease-fire, but they can affect the war. They can stop the demon invasion before it happens, either through months of constant research and the help of the greates scholars in the land, or by going to hell and killing all the demons.

[LnGrrrR]

BRC brings up what I think is a key determinant of a railroading GM... railroading is when the players can't do something that they logically should be allowed to do, based off the game state as presented. There's a lack of authenticity to the game world when railroading comes into play, which ruins a players sense of immersion, which then usually leads to feelbads.

Most GMs "railroad" to some extent, because it's hard to come up with awesomely inventive, original stories every week when the PCs decide they're just going to go off into the wood/break into a house/find a random dungeon/etc etc. But if that railroading is either not noticed, or agreed upon by the players, then it isn't as big a deal.

Edit: AnonymousWizard, I mostly agree, but introducing a "no-win" situation early in a campaign can sometimes provide motivation and a watershed moment when players level up enough to where they can take on the "no-win" situation later.

[Telok]

What I'm doing these days for plot writing is making an scene map and a timeline.
My current adventure started with a bank robbery, a nice little combat appetizer. Then there are three arrows leading out to other scenes, a couple of investigations and a payoff scene in a bar. There are arrows from those to a factory stakeout, a secret base, and a dock fight. Then some arrows lead between one event to another and to other events. The scenes are set up so that even partial success or failure can move the plot to another scene. Eventually three different arrows converge on the final battle scene.

The timeline is an if-then of the villain's actions and other world events. It gets vague as the timeline progresses and I update it after each session. This is because it represents my best guess as to what is likely to happen next and how much planning the villain can manage to do.
One aspect of my map is that I have two spare entry points into the adventure. If the players wander off into left field those can happen at any point on the timeline and serve to reorient the direction the players are going.
Of course the players are free to invent their own plot or just wander around and goof off. If they make their own adventure then I go with that and the evil plot of the bad guy has to wait. If they goof off then the timeline of the evil plot goes ahead and bad things happen.

I do have to recognize, and it is a bit of a personal failing, that I tend to write a few scenes that sort of require a particular outcome. These never work out really well. Either the players do something suicidal or insane, or the scene is set up in a can't-fail way that feels railroady. But I recognize this as an issue an I am trying to overcome it.

[Aliquid]

The larger scale an event is, the less likely it is that the players will simply be able to circumvent it.

True

So are all large scale events railroading? If there's a war, the player's would not be able to affect much except for the parts of it they touch (which might have a big effect, but likely wouldn't be able to shift everything). Natural disasters, are those railroading? There are after-all, no mechanical ways (in most systems) to stop a volcano.

No I don't suppose a large scale event would be railroading

So, at what point does having a pre-planned setback become railroading. Let's say I have the demon army popping up as a scenario, and the players try several things to stop it, but none of them work. Is it railroading, only if no options at all would have worked? And if so, is that unacceptable?

I think the actual question needs to shift...

Whether or not something is technically railroading or not isn't all that important. What really matters is if the players feel like they have been railroaded. That's when they get bitter and stop having fun with the game.

If the players feel like they have the ability to impact the plot line, then they are ok. If they feel like they are just puppets following the DM's whim, then there is a problem.

As a note: my personal belief, is that including no-win situations in the game, is perfectly fine, as long as they aren't constant, and aren't final.

As long as the no-win situation is believable, and the PCs' inability to succeed is believable and doesn't contradict other experiences within the story, then yes.

[AMFV]

Which brings us back to the original question. What is the difference between "Railroading" and "Linear Storytelling"? Nothing we can measure and put into a box.
Some players will accept being led by the nose, others will chafe at anything except a pure sandbox.

I definitely agree that there is a large margin given to personal preference here, which is actually what I'm mostly interested in, is to what different people prefer, what they consider railroading, that sort of thing. I've got a fairly good idea, what I condider to be unacceptable in terms of railroading, and finding out what other people do is useful to me as a DM.

But, in the end, what matters is not whether a DM is "Railroading" or just telling a story with a bit of a plan. What matters is how it affects the game. And the most common symptom of railroading is a loss of suspension of disbelief.

The second symptom is a loss of player enthusiasm for the game, as they no longer feel that their decisions, actions, or even dice rolls can have any meaningful impact on the story.

The reason I use the first symptom as my guide post is that it shows up a lot faster. As soon as the DM starts twisting the world to force the PC's down their predetermined path, suspension of disbelief starts breaking down. If the DM is willing to sacrifice the consistency of the game world in order to force the PCs down a specific path, then that's a clear sign that they are not going to let the players have any real agency in the story.

The second symptom, loss of enthusiasm, takes longer to manifest on it's own. Unless the players have a very low tolerance for railroading, it usually takes a while before they see the pattern and realize that, no, the DM is never going to let them make any meaningful decisions.

So why is that sometimes railroading, or a straight road story succeeds while others it doesn't in your opinion? Because as you've described it, a savvy enough GM could railroad the entire time, and just use their savvy to prevent a loss of disbelief, or explain things away efficiently enough. What is the key for you at least?

I'm the opposite. After a session or two I will lie, I will beg, I will trick, but I will not cheat in order to get my players to the outcome, and a no-win situation is cheating to me.

A situation the players can't fully influence is fine. Maybe the most the can do is cause a cease-fire, but they can affect the war. They can stop the demon invasion before it happens, either through months of constant research and the help of the greates scholars in the land, or by going to hell and killing all the demons.

I disagree still. Isn't it immersion breaking for you to have the players able to affect every scenario. It certainly would be for me. If the players could change the outcome of every scenario I would be concerned. For example trying to fight the demons might affect things, it could build support, it could rally people to the cause, it could limit demon numbers for later. But one could still have the invasion take place, well within the realm of realism.

BRC brings up what I think is a key determinant of a railroading GM... railroading is when the players can't do something that they logically should be allowed to do, based off the game state as presented. There's a lack of authenticity to the game world when railroading comes into play, which ruins a players sense of immersion, which then usually leads to feelbads.

Most GMs "railroad" to some extent, because it's hard to come up with awesomely inventive, original stories every week when the PCs decide they're just going to go off into the wood/break into a house/find a random dungeon/etc etc. But if that railroading is either not noticed, or agreed upon by the players, then it isn't as big a deal.

Well I suppose a lot of that deals with the DM's ability to improvise. So how do you feel about the "All doors lead to the same room" where the DM just moves the plot points around to where the players choose to go, is that railroading? Or is that even negative?

True

No I don't suppose a large scale event would be railroading

I think the actual question needs to shift...

Whether or not something is technically railroading or not isn't all that important. What really matters is if the players feel like they have been railroaded. That's when they get bitter and stop having fun with the game.

If the players feel like they have the ability to impact the plot line, then they are ok. If they feel like they are just puppets following the DM's whim, then there is a problem.

As long as the no-win situation is believable, and the PCs' inability to succeed is believable and doesn't contradict other experiences within the story, then yes.

Well I'm not actually as concerned with what technically is railroading, I'm more interested in people's opinions as to what is, and what they object to.

[Aliquid]

Well I'm not actually as concerned with what technically is railroading, I'm more interested in people's opinions as to what is, and what they object to.

Then I stick with my point. What matters is that the players feel like they can control what's happening. They feel like they have choice.

All doors leading to the same room... if the players don't catch on, then go for it. They won't be upset.

I agree with LnGrrrR's comment: "railroading is when the players can't do something that they logically should be allowed to do"

If the players say "we want to do this", and the DM stops it from happening and doesn't have a logical and/or believable reason... then the players will be upset. Really it just boils down to that.

[Anonymouswizard]

I disagree still. Isn't it immersion breaking for you to have the players able to affect every scenario. It certainly would be for me. If the players could change the outcome of every scenario I would be concerned. For example trying to fight the demons might affect things, it could build support, it could rally people to the cause, it could limit demon numbers for later. But one could still have the invasion take place, well within the realm of realism.

Let me put it this way: you can't effect everything, because choice A might male choice B invalid. However, because you can choose B you must be able to effect the situation it's based on.

I'm going back to planning my Anima campaign, I haven't finished statting ip any of the major players.

[AMFV]

Then I stick with my point. What matters is that the players feel like they can control what's happening. They feel like they have choice.

All doors leading to the same room... if the players don't catch on, then go for it. They won't be upset.

I agree with LnGrrrR's comment: "railroading is when the players can't do something that they logically should be allowed to do"

If the players say "we want to do this", and the DM stops it from happening and doesn't have a logical and/or believable reason... then the players will be upset. Really it just boils down to that.

As a corollary, do you think it's ever acceptable for a DM to ask players to follow a certain course out of character? Essentially encouraging something, or asking for that? I mean that's more directly railroading, but is still an interesting option.

Let me put it this way: you can't effect everything, because choice A might male choice B invalid. However, because you can choose B you must be able to effect the situation it's based on.

I'm going back to planning my Anima campaign, I haven't finished statting ip any of the major players.

I think we're on the same track here, just diverging over specifics. I think that having the players able to influence a situation is important. But I don't think that giving the players the ability to influence a situation necessarily means that they'll have total and complete control.

If the players pick choice A for example, then they can affect the situation it's based on, but they can't necessarily get all the things they want to resolve it, or make it go exactly the way they want.

[Gray Mage]

As a corollary, do you think it's ever acceptable for a DM to ask players to follow a certain course out of character? Essentially encouraging something, or asking for that? I mean that's more directly railroading, but is still an interesting option.

That's only really railroading if the players refusing makes no difference to them playing along. If the DM has a great idea for a break out of jail scene, he's completely in his right to pitch it to his players, just as they are to say that it doesn't seem fun to them so they'd rather do something else instead. If then the DM pretends to do something else and on the first oportunity throws them in jail by fiat, that is railroading. But if the players are ok with the plot, as long as the DM lets them play out how they want to go about solving the plot (in this case break out), it's not railroading.

[AMFV]

That's only really railroading if the players refusing makes no difference to them playing along. If the DM has a great idea for a break out of jail scene, he's completely in his right to pitch it to his players, just as they are to say that it doesn't seem fun to them so they'd rather do something else instead. If then the DM pretends to do something else and on the first oportunity throws them in jail by fiat, that is railroading. But if the players are ok with the plot, as long as the DM lets them play out how they want to go about solving the plot (in this case break out), it's not railroading.

So as a player, you'd rather be asked directly, than encouraged subtly. That's pretty interesting. One idea I've had recently is asking players what they want out of campaigns and character development. Although I've not got to try it in game, but the idea of working towards what they want, seems appealing to me. I wonder if pausing the rails for an OOC break, might help tricky situations where you (as a DM) really want things to go a certain way.

[Red Fel]

I like these examples quite a bit. My question is what point would you say over-reliance on the linearity of the story is a problem. For example let's say the players decide to thwart the invasion at any cost. If they are expending all of their time and resources on it, would it be a bad thing to have them fail? After all, stories often do involve set-backs.

Well, it's complicated. For instance, if a player said, "I want my character to take over France; he has $500, low Charisma, and don't speak the language," would it be a bad thing if he failed? Far from it.

The players could dedicate all of their resources to stopping the invasion, but if this is one of those "cosmic powers predestined" events, tough luck. If, on the other hand, they could come up with a legitimate method of preventing it - for example, discovering the source of the invasion's ability to invade, and destroying it - they should be able to. But at that point, you've changed one of your story points, from "the demons invade, the world (and PCs) responds," to "the demons attempt to invade, the world (and PCs) responds." If you're willing to do that, great, but if not, certain sacrifices - including the ability of the PCs to significantly alter key events - must be made. I'm not making a value judgment on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

The other thing is that the railroading option seems to have the players significantly more involved in the plot. How would you feel about a DM asking if the players minded that pre-game. For example: "For this story, I'd like if somebody was the chosen one, somebody had spoken the words, and somebody had done the other thing at some point in their backstory," thus making the ties to the plot more complete, but not forcing the players in game to something.

Well, clarify one thing - railroading doesn't actually have the players significantly more involved in the plot. It has the characters involved, but the same could be done with an NPC or trained monkey. It's simply arbitrary and fiat that the PCs are the ones doing the mandatory things. It's an illusion of involvement.

As for asking in advance? That is, in my mind, ideal. That's ideal in any linear setting. When playing an AP or other pre-made module, for instance, it should be standard practice to tell the players, "This scenario is pre-written, with certain things being required. They must happen for the story to continue. I'd really appreciate if you could play along with respect to those things." This informs the players in advance that, for the sake of the adventure, certain freedoms will need to be curtailed. A reasonable player who trusts in his GM should be able to go along with that, being so warned in advance. It's different if you spring those restrictions on players after play has begun.

[AMFV]

Well, it's complicated. For instance, if a player said, "I want my character to take over France; he has $500, low Charisma, and don't speak the language," would it be a bad thing if he failed? Far from it.

True, although this does border on long-term character goals. I think that asking a player what they want to do in the long-term, and then trying to work with them towards that goal, is something that I want to incorporate more into my games. The main thing I would want to know is if that's a player goal, or a character goal. If the player wants his character to eventually bathe and rule France, that might be doable, if the character wants that (but is still poor and unwashed) it's less likely to succeed.

The players could dedicate all of their resources to stopping the invasion, but if this is one of those "cosmic powers predestined" events, tough luck. If, on the other hand, they could come up with a legitimate method of preventing it - for example, discovering the source of the invasion's ability to invade, and destroying it - they should be able to. But at that point, you've changed one of your story points, from "the demons invade, the world (and PCs) responds," to "the demons attempt to invade, the world (and PCs) responds." If you're willing to do that, great, but if not, certain sacrifices - including the ability of the PCs to significantly alter key events - must be made. I'm not making a value judgment on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

I agree

Well, clarify one thing - railroading doesn't actually have the players significantly more involved in the plot. It has the characters involved, but the same could be done with an NPC or trained monkey. It's simply arbitrary and fiat that the PCs are the ones doing the mandatory things. It's an illusion of involvement.

I agree as well. Although I suspect that the illusion of involvement might be better than no involvement at all.

As for asking in advance? That is, in my mind, ideal. That's ideal in any linear setting. When playing an AP or other pre-made module, for instance, it should be standard practice to tell the players, "This scenario is pre-written, with certain things being required. They must happen for the story to continue. I'd really appreciate if you could play along with respect to those things." This informs the players in advance that, for the sake of the adventure, certain freedoms will need to be curtailed. A reasonable player who trusts in his GM should be able to go along with that, being so warned in advance. It's different if you spring those restrictions on players after play has begun.

I think that one big thing that might need to be covered is how much wiggle room the players have. I mean it could be very linear, or you could be willing to improvise things. Some published works have more wiggle room, or are fairly removed from chapter to chapter, others are less so. So I think establishing that early on, and then asking the players what they want out of the adventure, is key, if we can give them what they want, then that's going to help in making things more fulfilling I'd imagine (although that's not terribly railroad related)

[Darth Ultron]

Railroading must be done in any game if you have any sort of even vague plot or story. The only times players even cry about railroading is when they encounter the two worst types of railroading: When they can't do something they overly selfishly thing their character should be able to do and the DM must nudge them back to reality, and the DM that hits players over their heads with the railroad like a club.


Otherwise, players are fine with being railroaded. And it is needed, for anything to happen.

[AMFV]

Railroading must be done in any game if you have any sort of even vague plot or story. The only times players even cry about railroading is when they encounter the two worst types of railroading: When they can't do something they overly selfishly thing their character should be able to do and the DM must nudge them back to reality, and the DM that hits players over their heads with the railroad like a club.


Otherwise, players are fine with being railroaded. And it is needed, for anything to happen.

Well the main point of this thread is trying to figure out where something becomes the "Hits over the head like a club" when the railroad is too painfully obvious, or is likely to be percieved as a negative. That's what we're aiming to assess.