Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

[Pex]

Spinning off from a modules discussion to talk about railroading in general.

I don't mind games where the DM sets up the plot, and the players deal with it. The opposite of the sandbox, the plot is the game. There's the overall Campaign Plot which is not necessarily revealed in Session 1 but eventually becomes the final goal. Meanwhile there are a series of adventure arcs that can take a few sessions before defeating the BBEG of that mini-story and go on to the next one. The DM creates the crises the players solve. Playing a module is a type of this trolly track.

What prevents it being a railroad is player freedom to solve the crisis the way they want to. Talk or fight. Go left or go right. Ignore the named NPC but like and care about random person #3 and have drama that has nothing to with the Plot. Maybe the players think of something the DM has not, but it's fun and cool so the DM goes with it. We're the PCs so of course we have to save the world. We're doing it, case closed, but we get to say how.

[CharonsHelper]

Yeah - that's a good way to make a longer module/adventure especially.

I consider it to be the Immersive Sim style of adventure. In Deus Ex (the epitome of the immersive sim genre IMO) you didn't get to choose your missions, but there were always half a dozen viable ways to do them, and some of the methods likely weren't planned by the designers. They just give you the tools and the objective - how you deal with it is up to you. Plus, your choices often have a noticeable impact upon the plot.

Ex: Whether or not your brother dies. The story moves right along either way, but your decisions feel impactful.

[kyoryu]

Are you talking about advice that's basically "create situations, not plots?"

So, like, if you were going to do a "the Baron is bad" game, a linear game would be "I am going to design a series of encounters that will basically be gone through, in order, until you fight the Baron."

OTOH, what I tend to do is "okay, the Baron is bad. These are the things he's going to do. These are the other people in the city, and the major players that are both supporting and against the Baron", and then letting the players figure out what they're going to do - assassinate him, lead an armed insurrection, cut off his support amongst the other nobles, even get on his good side and use that to change what he's doing.

(Also, linear games are fine. I just always say that you should get your players on board with that.)

[NigelWalmsley]

Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

[Democratus]

Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

This works fine in a sandbox/hex crawl.

Knowing what kind of game you are running is an important 'Session 0' decision.

[kyoryu]

Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

In an adventure path kinda thing? Yup. And that's fine, just tell the players that's what's going on.

In a sandbox? Nope, not at all.

In a more emergent game? Not at all. There's lots of ways to have emergent games that still have "stories" but not predefined plots, and I'd be happy to talk about those.

[NigelWalmsley]

In a more emergent game? Not at all. There's lots of ways to have emergent games that still have "stories" but not predefined plots, and I'd be happy to talk about those.

How are you defining "emergent"? Because it seems to me that if your big bad or whatever is determined before the game starts, that is by definition not emergent.

[kyoryu]

How are you defining "emergent"? Because it seems to me that if your big bad or whatever is determined before the game starts, that is by definition not emergent.

I disagree.

I think you can have an emergent game where there is a known threat. How the players deal with that can still be emergent.

And, hell, maybe something happens to the "big bad" between campaign start and the end, and maybe that's even because of player actions, and so the big bad gets changed out.

Emergent play is all about setting a starting situation, and then putting the balls in motion. There can be a "big bad" at that point, but that can change over time too. If you're planning that the players will fight the big bad, and in this location, and after they do these other things... you're starting to pull away from that.

I mean, look at my Baron example... I'd say that sounds perfectly emergent. If I were to run that scenario, I really don't know how it would go. Any of the paths could work, and any of the paths could have interesting unintended consequences.

Assassinate the Baron? Cool, now there's a power vacuum.

Make alliances in the nobles to get them to overthrow? Awesome, now are they any better? What are their goals? What do they want from the players now? How have you entwined yourselves in debt and obligations to them?

Work to cause civic unrest? Great, now how does hte rest of the kingdom feel about that? What does the mob do when they've ousted him? Do the people see you as a savior and have expectations, or do they see you as a useful tool that must now be discarded?

Get in with him and convert him to Good? Sweet, now how is he going to deal with the rest of the kingdom? How many people now see him as a threat?

[Pex]

Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

The point is we wouldn't just leave town. We're doing the Thing because that's the session's adventure. The freedom is in doing it how we want to do it.

[OldTrees1]

The point is we wouldn't just leave town. We're doing the Thing because that's the session's adventure. The freedom is in doing it how we want to do it.

In other words this is a (multidimensional) continuum from 0 freedom to total freedom. A Trolly Track style will contain railroading (just look under the trolly) but it permits more agency than the more stereotypical railroading. That is fine, there are players that enjoy that style, and even some that prefer it over true sandboxes.


Although I do still prefer sandboxes. You get interesting moments like me, the DM, not knowing who the final antagonist will be. I thought I knew, and I might still be right, but the players have thrown that into doubt. And I love it.

[Pleh]

Although I do still prefer sandboxes. You get interesting moments like me, the DM, not knowing who the final antagonist will be. I thought I knew, and I might still be right, but the players have thrown that into doubt. And I love it.

In a true sandbox, there may not end up being any big bad or final antagonist.

[Vahnavoi]

Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

This question would be best answered by playing Star Control 2, Exile 3 or Ancient Domains of Mystery on a computer. Long story short: if it's a campaign plot, it's by definition bigger than a "town". There's more than one hook and there are active events that will create more hooks if the players don't pay attention to the first one.

[OldTrees1]

In a true sandbox, there may not end up being any big bad or final antagonist.

Very true. In this case the PCs don't like the status quo and there are agents that cause / propagate that status quo. So I suspect they will choose a final antagonist eventually. However that is not a forgone conclusion. I love how the DM's omniscience POV still leaves me with only speculation about the future.

[Quertus]

I disagree.

I think you can have an emergent game where there is a known threat. How the players deal with that can still be emergent.

And, hell, maybe something happens to the "big bad" between campaign start and the end, and maybe that's even because of player actions, and so the big bad gets changed out.

Emergent play is all about setting a starting situation, and then putting the balls in motion. There can be a "big bad" at that point, but that can change over time too. If you're planning that the players will fight the big bad, and in this location, and after they do these other things... you're starting to pull away from that.

I mean, look at my Baron example... I'd say that sounds perfectly emergent. If I were to run that scenario, I really don't know how it would go. Any of the paths could work, and any of the paths could have interesting unintended consequences.

Assassinate the Baron? Cool, now there's a power vacuum.

Make alliances in the nobles to get them to overthrow? Awesome, now are they any better? What are their goals? What do they want from the players now? How have you entwined yourselves in debt and obligations to them?

Work to cause civic unrest? Great, now how does hte rest of the kingdom feel about that? What does the mob do when they've ousted him? Do the people see you as a savior and have expectations, or do they see you as a useful tool that must now be discarded?

Get in with him and convert him to Good? Sweet, now how is he going to deal with the rest of the kingdom? How many people now see him as a threat?

Imma use your example. Because it's good. And the PCs *could* do those things.

Or the PCs could *assist* the Baron (without converting him).

Or they could *ignore* the Baron, and *use* the chaos his plans create to improve their own position.

Or they could *completely ignore* the Baron, and travel to another area / plane / world.

If, as GM, you didn't get buy-in from the players that "defeating the evil Baron is the name of the game" from the start, then that's on you, and you need to decide if you're going to railroad the game back onto the tracks (bad), talk to the players like adults and ask them not to break your game (can be good, can be silly (see "the role of the mighty"), but should probably be coupled with learning to do a better job communicating the game in the future), or take the game in the direction that the players want to go (can be good, or can be something you're simply not able to run well).

I've done all 3

And I'll still do the last two, depending.

In short, creating "trolly tracks" can be fine, *if* you get buy-in. But, then, that's true of most things.

[Tanarii]

Trolley track's moral worth depends on the effort the DM and Players want to put in. They're much easier for everyone involved. They may or may not be as satisfying though.

[Jay R]

The problem with a railroad doesn't come when the DM invents the problems and put them in a row.

The problem comes when the DM invents the solutions and puts them in a row.

Nothing wrong with, "First they have to make it through the swamp, then they will face an ogre, then there is a mountain to climb, leading to a secret door to a long cave."

The problems come in with "To get through the swamp they need to get K'karrh to guide them. Then the ogre can't be beaten except with Cold Iron. The mountain can't be climbed without Spider Climb. To get to the rest of the cave they will need to make a DC 30 Spot check."

I don't insist that the DM invent an entire world of encounters of which I will face less than 0.01%. I insist that when the DM puts me in a difficulty, I can invent a way to overcome it that the DM didn't necessarily plan.

My creativity and ideas should be aimed at more than just guessing the DM's secret trick.

[Tanarii]

I don't insist that the DM invent an entire world of encounters of which I will face less than 0.01%.

Which brings to mind the other kind of Railroading. Illusionism.

[False God]

*insert expression of general agreement with the OP here*

I could write a big tedious commentary on sandboxes, railroads and so on, but I'm fairly certain Op-Eds on that are really unnecessary.

[OldTrees1]

The problem with a railroad doesn't come when the DM invents the problems and put them in a row.

The problem comes when the DM invents the solutions and puts them in a row.

Nothing wrong with, "First they have to make it through the swamp, then they will face an ogre, then there is a mountain to climb, leading to a secret door to a long cave."

The problems come in with "To get through the swamp they need to get K'karrh to guide them. Then the ogre can't be beaten except with Cold Iron. The mountain can't be climbed without Spider Climb. To get to the rest of the cave they will need to make a DC 30 Spot check."

I don't insist that the DM invent an entire world of encounters of which I will face less than 0.01%. I insist that when the DM puts me in a difficulty, I can invent a way to overcome it that the DM didn't necessarily plan.

My creativity and ideas should be aimed at more than just guessing the DM's secret trick.

Creating a series of problems that don't necessarily follow from each other and then saying "No" to anything that could stray from that sequence can be problematic. Check with your players before presuming that they are okay with that much railroading.

Case in point, Jay R seems fine with that degree of railroading. They are okay with the DM creating a predetermined series of problems as long as the PCs have full agency over how to handle each problem. However I would be annoyed that the only valid "solution" to reaching the cave was restricted to that specific sequence of problems. Is the mountain in the middle of the swamp? Are there a million ogres that happen to live spaced out in a circle surrounding the mountain? So it is wise for the DM to communicate (speak & listen) to the players to see what they want. Some players want even more predetermined structure than Jay R does and some want even less than I do. Communication is key to avoiding problems.

For me whether I am the DM or a PC, I don't want the DM to have determined any of the PC's actions (other than common sense and standard operator procedures). Although a fallible prediction of what the PCs will do (aka an educated guess) is fine. If the PCs plan to reach a cave in a mountain, they might or might not go through the swamp. If the DM is not the author, I bend that preference a little by having the DM and other players agree on some of the PC's objectives. But sometimes not even then, for example I am currently running Curse of Strahd with a suspicion but not a certainty that the PCs will have a conflict with Strahd. For that campaign I only required the PCs were corruptible and they would be transported to Barovia.

[JNAProductions]

To me, the main difference between linearity (which is a perfectly fine playstyle choice) and railroading (which is awful) is player buy-in.

If your pitch is "You start behind the enemy lines-orcs, in this case-and the game will be about that invasion and handling it, in a pretty straightforward fashion," and the game is exactly that... Well, you knew exactly what you were signing on to. If you prefer games where you can go and do anything, then the pitch (possibly asking more about it, but still, at the pitch) is when you can say "Nah, not interested. Good luck and have fun with it, though!"

If your pitch is "Open-world sandbox, do anything, whatever you want!" and the game ends up being a linear series of encounters without responding to player input... Quite simply put, the DM lied.

While linear games are not my favorite style, there's nothing wrong with them. It's the lying that's bad, and will produce unhappy players since they can't do what they thought they could.

[Quertus]

So, let's go with the swamp ogre mountain example. And imma use myself as an example.

I'm pretty anti-Railroading.

If the GM says, "I'm running a module, and there isn't any content given outside this linear path (and I can't just make something up)", I'm fine with that. You'll get my buy-in. Or… I might suggest additional content (if we're not stoked about the "module" nature of the game).

If the GM is writing their own content, and wants to run a linear adventure, they'll get my tentative buy-in, so long as a) it isn't egregiously stupid / out of character; b) the "what" is linear, but the "how" is not railroaded; C) the PCs can still have their intended effects.

"B" was already covered, I think. Denying "B" is nearly the definition of "Railroading". But, if one of the PCs is an air ship captain, requiring us to walk through the swamp & meet the Ogre just doesn't follow. If one of the PCs had bad experiences with and completely avoids water - including swamps - then it isn't in character for them to go on this quest (at least, now without going *around* the swamp). And, if, when you calculate overland movement, you set that it's actually *faster* to go around the swamp, then the basic premise of the linear adventure fails, too.

Looked at from another PoV, IMO, the whole game should be a conversation. Behavior (like Railroading) becomes problematic, then, when it involves not treating players with the respect due to reasonable adults, and shutting down that communication.

[MoiMagnus]

Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

What if they don't?
Is it still a railroad if the players actively try to follow the overhaul direction you roughly hinted for them?

I mean, obviously, you just need one player who actively tries to go orthogonal to the plot for things to go south, or one big mistake / big luck at a critical moment for the course of the adventure to go in a completely different direction. But not everyone plays from 1st level to 20th level, so on short campaigns, this is not that unlikely.
[Unless you are the kind of player to willingly go outside the road whenever possible, in this case obviously you will never play in a group where there is no person like you...]

[kyoryu]

I think it's useful to look at three related concepts:

1. Linear games. A game where the game is defined by a series of encounters/scenes that the GM designs in advance.
2. Participationist games - a linear game where the players are aware that the game is linear, and agree to follow the path.
3. Illusionist/railroad game - a linear game where the players are unaware that the game is linear, and so the GM must do various things to keep them on the path

[OldTrees1]

I think it's useful to look at three related concepts:

1. Linear games. A game where the game is defined by a series of encounters/scenes that the GM designs in advance.
2. Participationist games - a linear game where the players are aware that the game is linear, and agree to follow the path.
3. Illusionist/railroad game - a linear game where the players are unaware that the game is linear, and so the GM must do various things to keep them on the path

Participationist games might include the players voluntarily agreeing to the GM doing various things to keep them on the path. Aka the Players ask the GM to intervene with railroading if the Players get lost. An example would be if they are playing a linear mystery game and the players ask the GM to help them get back on track if they chase a red herring for more than 30m.

[MoiMagnus]

Participationist games might include the players voluntarily agreeing to the GM doing various things to keep them on the path. Aka the Players ask the GM to intervene with railroading if the Players get lost. An example would be if they are playing a linear mystery game and the players ask the GM to help them get back on track if they chase a red herring for more than 30m.

On a similar note, my main DM sometimes call for player vote (not character vote) to decide the direction the campaign should take. E.g "This decision will send the campaign of the rails, and precipitate the third act. Please vote on whether you you're ok to precipitate the end of the campaign by proceeding with this assassination attempt, or if you want to keep with your previous plan of condemning the governor to death for high treason, which will be an end of the campaign more focused on investigation and scheming."

[kyoryu]

Participationist games might include the players voluntarily agreeing to the GM doing various things to keep them on the path. Aka the Players ask the GM to intervene with railroading if the Players get lost. An example would be if they are playing a linear mystery game and the players ask the GM to help them get back on track if they chase a red herring for more than 30m.

Yeah, 100%. Once you've signed up, you're on the path. You should be pretty deliberately following the breadcrumbs, and the GM should make sure there are enough or use some of those techniques.

At the end of the day, the techniques aren't fundamentally the problem (and some of the techniques are used, in some way, in open/emergent games as well). The issue is a) the fundamental structure and b) consent.

IOW, the difference between participationism and illusionism is the difference between polyamory and infidelity.

On a similar note, my main DM sometimes call for player vote (not character vote) to decide the direction the campaign should take. E.g "This decision will send the campaign of the rails, and precipitate the third act. Please vote on whether you you're ok to precipitate the end of the campaign by proceeding with this assassination attempt, or if you want to keep with your previous plan of condemning the governor to death for high treason, which will be an end of the campaign more focused on investigation and scheming."

Yeah, that's fair. I don't see any reason not to involve players at the player level in decisions like this.

[Tanarii]

IOW, the difference between participationism and illusionism is the difference between polyamory and infidelity.

If I understand you correctly ...

if the players ask the GM the question "if we'd chosen apparently meaningful choice X differently would it have still resulted in the same thing" and the DM says 'Yes':
- it's illusionism if the players find that an abrogation of their agency and they get upset.
- it's participationism if the players find that an abrogation of their agency and they are happy about it.

I suppose technically there's also:
- the players don't understand the meaning of agency, so they don't find it an abrogated.


Most 'reality check if it's illusionism' phrasing that I've seen before assumes the GM must tell a lie and say 'No, it would have been different'. Because otherwise the illusion of agency fails. So that's interesting.

[kyoryu]

If I understand you correctly ...

if the players ask the GM the question "if we'd chosen apparently meaningful choice X differently would it have still resulted in the same thing" and the DM says 'Yes':
- it's illusionism if the players find that an abrogation of their agency and they get upset.
- it's participationism if the players find that an abrogation of their agency and they are happy about it.

I suppose technically there's also:
- the players don't understand the meaning of agency, so they don't find it an abrogated.


Most 'reality check if it's illusionism' phrasing that I've seen before assumes the GM must tell a lie and say 'No, it would have been different'. Because otherwise the illusion of agency fails. So that's interesting.

Usually it's more done in advance.

Participationism:
"Let's run descent to avernus"
"Oh, cool, I know we're running a module, so my expectations are set and I will happily follow along with the module becuase that's what we agreed to do"

Illusionism:
"Let's run a game! You can do whatever you want! (But secretly I have the whole path and plot planned out!)"
"Oh, cool, I want a game where I have freedom!"

It's not about reaction. It's about knowledge and informed decision-making, especially about whether you play in the game in the first place.

If you don't have an agreement that it's okay to go out and fool around, it's still infidelity, even if you're forgiven after the fact.

And, yes, I do think the GM should be clear if they're running a more open/less directed game as well. There's advantages and disadvantages to both, and some people like one or the other. Giving people the information to make an informed decision on whether or not to play in the game is, to me, pretty much just basic courtesy.

[CharonsHelper]

Usually it's more done in advance.

Participationism:
"Let's run descent to avernus"
"Oh, cool, I know we're running a module, so my expectations are set and I will happily follow along with the module becuase that's what we agreed to do"

Illusionism:
"Let's run a game! You can do whatever you want! (But secretly I have the whole path and plot planned out!)"
"Oh, cool, I want a game where I have freedom!"

It's not about reaction. It's about knowledge and informed decision-making, especially about whether you play in the game in the first place.

Yeah, that's sort of how I feel about fudging dice. If the GM lies about how he never fudges dice then it bugs me.

But I know my buddy (who was GM) was running a module (Strange Aeons) and he straight-up told us to start that a couple of the early encounters seemed overly brutal and that he might fudge them a bit rather than re-vamping them entirely. Mostly - it felt like the module designer was thinking of the 3.5 doppelgangers (single +5 / 1d6+1 slam) when writing it rather than the much scarier Pathfinder doppelganger (two +8 / 1d8+4 claws), which is pretty brutal at level 1. I think there may have even been an encounter with a pair of them at level 2.

[OldTrees1]

It's not about reaction. It's about knowledge and informed decision-making, especially about whether you play in the game in the first place.

Agreed, the difference between Participationism and Illusionism is whether the Players were able to make an informed decision about the game in the first place. Both use railroading but in Participationism, the Player made an informed decision to buy into / opt into the specific kind of railroading that would be used.

You could even describe this as orthogonal to the Total Railroad/Total Agency continuum. If a campaign is almost a complete sandbox but has 1 elemental of railroading (Attempts to leave the Island return you to the Island), that railroading could be Participationism or Illusionism depending on if the Players were able to make an informed decision about it, EVEN if the PCs never attempt to leave the Island. If the Players knew about that limitation ahead of time, that would indicate that bit of railroading was Participationism. If the DM mislead the Players, then it would be Illusionism even if the PCs never attempted to leave the Island.


People might have various preferences over how much Player Agency they want in a game. But most people would agree they don't want to be tricked into playing a game that was not as advertised.