Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

[OldTrees1]

Maybe a river metaphor works better? Like the players are in a boat, going down a river. The river is full of encounters and obstacles. The players can choose to smash through them (fight), go around them, talk their way past them, sneak around them or even leave the river and walk along the edge and get back in the river later.

Sidenote: We have seen many metaphors over the years at giantitp.
Railroad
Trolley
Boat / River (new)
Car / Branching road system
Offroad (sandbox)

[zarionofarabel]

All predetermined plots are "railroads" in my humble opinion. If the module says it's about the PCs defeating an ancient vampire that lives in a caste, that's what's going to happen. What happens if the players decide they don't care about defeating the vampire? The module is now useless. Same goes for a plot designed by the DM. Either the players go along with the plot or all that prep is now useless.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All predetermined plots are "railroads" in my humble opinion. If the module says it's about the PCs defeating an ancient vampire that lives in a caste, that's what's going to happen. What happens if the players decide they don't care about defeating the vampire? The module is now useless. Same goes for a plot designed by the DM. Either the players go along with the plot or all that prep is now useless.

But how far ahead do things have to be to be "predetermined"? I notoriously don't plan more than a session or so ahead, and don't plan outcomes (although I can predict with fair accuracy after a few sessions what that outcome will be).

And to me, railroads are more about not having a choice as to method than outcome--I generally assume the protagonists will win (unless something goes seriously sideways). But how they win...that's open in a non-railroad.

[Quertus]

But how far ahead do things have to be to be "predetermined"? I notoriously don't plan more than a session or so ahead, and don't plan outcomes (although I can predict with fair accuracy after a few sessions what that outcome will be).

And to me, railroads are more about not having a choice as to method than outcome--I generally assume the protagonists will win (unless something goes seriously sideways). But how they win...that's open in a non-railroad.

What about *what* they will win? Like if they decide to *ally with* or *profit off* the vampire, rather than defeating them?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What about *what* they will win? Like if they decide to *ally with* or *profit off* the vampire, rather than defeating them?

I'm 90% sure (based on my self-selected player-base and my own stated-at-session-0 dislike for evil campaigns) that that's an unlikely outcome. But if it happens...well...that's interesting. And not off the table, as long as they can do so without breaking my OOC non-negotiable rules (basically, don't squick me out or go murderhobo). I've had several where they resolved the forked path quite differently than I had expected (basically took neither option) and several where their focus was quite different than I imagined.

But really, the general thrust of how they'll resolve the situation is usually quite predictable in advance, just from paying attention to the group. So the parts I build are based on how they've gone so far in that arc. So it's somewhat circular--I call it "self-laying railroad tracks"--they can go anywhere, but the trajectory is (mostly) fixed at the session-to-session level with branch points. They tend to tackle one problem, solve it one way or another, then move on to another. And it's pretty predictable when they're going to switch.

One thing is that I don't plan campaigns, I run at the arc level. For example, my current arc is expected to run from level 1 to about level 4 or 5 and has 4 major factors in their overarching arc goal[1], of which they've sort-of dealt with one (faster than I expected, but not by much, and about in the way I expected them to). The next session will involve learning about those other factors and deciding which one to tackle next. So I'm building out the high-level ideas as to what exactly is involved with those other factors, estimating that they'll hit them (if they do) somewhere in that level 2-level 5 band. I think I know which one they'll go for next, but :shrug:.

Edit: another way of putting it is that in hindsight, the eventual outcome was always going to happen. But no one including me knew what that outcome would be in advance. By building JIT, it makes it look like it's a smooth arc always pointing to the outcome, even though if you'd have predicted it at any instant you may have been wrong. Some groups are predictable well in advance--I've had some where there was no question from day 1 where they were going to go with that arc. And I've had some that were...very much less so.

[1] In theory there's a main quest for the first arc, one of a bunch that they chose to tackle at session 0. But really (and explicitly so out of character) it's just an excuse to put them somewhere in the path of adventure. Where they go from there and what they do is really up to them.

[zarionofarabel]

I guess for me it's the predetermined end point that makes it a railroad. Long ago I tried my best to prep actual plotted adventures in advance, at the request of my players no less. Then, right at the beginning of the plot arc my players took a course of action that completely invalidated the preplanned ending. So, after that, I decided it best to just make up **** on the spot as the game was played.

Of course, when pulling **** out of my ass on the fly moment by moment as the game is being played at the table, it is restricted to the agreed upon premise of the campaign. So if it's a campaign about Roman soldiers in Gaul, I'm not going to have a UFO with Vulcans show up cause that would be stupid. I try to stick to things that would logically make sense within the already established narrative.

I do realize that most GMs don't do this, and that is fine. But I do feel that if the GM decided at the beginning of the campaign, or session, that my PC will ABSOLUTELY fight the vampire in the castle no matter what! That is THE definition of a railroad because no matter what I do, I will have to fight the vampire, thus I have no agency to change my fate.

I am in no way the norm when it comes to GMing as I believe most GMs use published adventures, or at least plots they created in advance. This is IMHO perfectly fine!

****, I still play computer RPGs knowing full well that it is 100% a railroad as I have absolutely no chance of changing the story. I may get the red glow at the end cause I was evil instead of the green glow the good guys get, but the plot points for both are identical!

[Pleh]

I guess for me it's the predetermined end point that makes it a railroad.

I think it will vary based on how self motivated the players are.

Let's treat it with a matrix.

• Case 1: Neither the GM nor the players have a specific goal in mind. This kind of game probably least resembles a railroad, but can sometimes have trouble with the blank canvas and lack of overarcing vision.
• Case 2: The GM has a goal, but the players don't. This begins to resemble railroading, but often is the softest and most acceptable form. As long as the players are enjoying the ride and haven't rejected the destination, these tend to be good games as well.
• Case 3: The GM has no specific goal, but the players do. Basic description of Sandbox. It's probably the scenario with the fewest potential problems within the group, but the GM has their work cut out for them keeping up with player antics.
• Case 4: Both the GM and the players are pursuing specific goals. This isn't inherently bad for the game. These games tend to have higher stakes as everyone at the table is invested in the outcome. That is what makes the game turn sour quickly if any or all players are not respecting each other's goals or playing fairly. This is where you start to see accusations of railroading or derailing the game, but it can also be highly effective and gratifying when it works out that everyone is able to achieve their goals together.

So, to me, "predetermined end" is not enough to color something a railroad.

True railroading is actually a conflict of interests between players at the table.

[OldTrees1]

All predetermined plots are "railroads" in my humble opinion. If the module says it's about the PCs defeating an ancient vampire that lives in a caste, that's what's going to happen. What happens if the players decide they don't care about defeating the vampire? The module is now useless. Same goes for a plot designed by the DM. Either the players go along with the plot or all that prep is now useless.

But how far ahead do things have to be to be "predetermined"? I notoriously don't plan more than a session or so ahead, and don't plan outcomes (although I can predict with fair accuracy after a few sessions what that outcome will be).

And to me, railroads are more about not having a choice as to method than outcome--I generally assume the protagonists will win (unless something goes seriously sideways). But how they win...that's open in a non-railroad.

I guess for me it's the predetermined end point that makes it a railroad. Long ago I tried my best to prep actual plotted adventures in advance, at the request of my players no less. Then, right at the beginning of the plot arc my players took a course of action that completely invalidated the preplanned ending. So, after that, I decided it best to just make up **** on the spot as the game was played.

I am running Curse of Strahd and I don't know if the PCs will try to defeat the vampire. They probably will, but I am uncertain. However their other actions have caused me to start expanding the module with new content to handle the consequences of some of their actions. Although I would say the CoS module is still very useful, and is helping me write the new content. This is not true for all modules. Personally I really like the uncertainty because it is evidence that the players are controlling the PCs.

However I think I can bridge these two perspectives on railroading:
Who is controlling the PC? / Who is making the choices the PC faces?

If I predetermine the PCs will defeat the vampire, then I am controlling the PC either by controlling what goals the PC adopts, or by twisting the outcome of their actions to the same overall result.
If I control how the PCs will defeat their foes, then I am controlling the PC either by controlling which actions the PC takes, or by twisting the outcomes of those actions to the same overall result.

This is why I usually use "railroading" as a verb because both of those moments of control are forms of railroading. The absolute purest railroad (an author writing a novel) includes both. You move towards sandbox on the continuum as you cede more and more control of the PCs to the players.

I think it will vary based on how self motivated the players are.

Let's treat it with a matrix.

• Case 1: Neither the GM nor the players have a specific goal in mind. This kind of game probably least resembles a railroad, but can sometimes have trouble with the blank canvas and lack of overarcing vision.
• Case 2: The GM has a goal, but the players don't. This begins to resemble railroading, but often is the softest and most acceptable form. As long as the players are enjoying the ride and haven't rejected the destination, these tend to be good games as well.
• Case 3: The GM has no specific goal, but the players do. Basic description of Sandbox. It's probably the scenario with the fewest potential problems within the group, but the GM has their work cut out for them keeping up with player antics.
• Case 4: Both the GM and the players are pursuing specific goals. This isn't inherently bad for the game. These games tend to have higher stakes as everyone at the table is invested in the outcome. That is what makes the game turn sour quickly if any or all players are not respecting each other's goals or playing fairly. This is where you start to see accusations of railroading or derailing the game, but it can also be highly effective and gratifying when it works out that everyone is able to achieve their goals together.

So, to me, "predetermined end" is not enough to color something a railroad.

True railroading is actually a conflict of interests between players at the table.

"color something a railroad"? Players have comfort ranges on the sandbox to railroad continuum. Some of them prefer campaigns with more railroading. As someone that runs near the sandbox end of the continuum, there has been a time the players wanted more railroading (adjustments were made).

A predetermined end makes something more of a railroad, but it is a continuum, and a campaign can have more railroading than just a predetermined end. Consider Oedipus, who had a predetermined end and tried to flee it, but was forced to that outcome. That feels like railroading to me.

[Pleh]

A predetermined end makes something more of a railroad, but it is a continuum, and a campaign can have more railroading than just a predetermined end. Consider Oedipus, who had a predetermined end and tried to flee it, but was forced to that outcome. That feels like railroading to me.

Then let's consider when a predetermined end does not imply a railroad.

"Predetermined" does not preclude the ending also being Conditional.

"BBEG is plotting Big Bad Evil Scheme and will succeed IF players do not manage to prevent this outcome."

See how the outcome is both predetermined, but also conditional. Players are not confined to any particular response, as Quertus pointed out, they could try and Join the BBEG or to Profit From the Scheme.

No railroads, but it still has a predetermined end.

Another example, minus the conditional nature.

The world is ending. Players have a sandbox at the precipice of the apocalypse and choose how to spend their final years. No, they can't stop the world from ending, and that may seem like a railroad, but even Sandboxes usually have a couple walls and constraints. Sure, you can leave a sandbox to play in a different sandbox, but that doesn't magically turn the two sandboxes into one bigger sandbox (doing that requires extra work of weaving the box walls together and filling in the gap with sand).

Sandboxes still have walls to hold the sand in. You can put one of the walls on the ending and it doesn't transform from a sandbox to a railroad. This is because the ending isn't always related to what the players do in the game. It isn't always a consequence of their agency. Having a timer on playtime in the sandbox doesn't suddenly force you to travel through the sandbox on a predetermined path. It just means whatever you are doing stops at a certain point.

Sandboxes don't inherently lack definitions. They just tend to have a background scale of limitations, with minimal control of small scale interactions and choices.

[OldTrees1]

Then let's consider when a predetermined end does not imply a railroad.

"Predetermined" does not preclude the ending also being Conditional.

Good point about "predetermined" being a bad word choice. Technically an infinite possibility sandbox has an infinite number of unknown predetermined conditional endings.

Another example, minus the conditional nature.

The world is ending. Players have a sandbox at the precipice of the apocalypse and choose how to spend their final years. No, they can't stop the world from ending, and that may seem like a railroad, but even Sandboxes usually have a couple walls and constraints.

That is the conditional nature again but with a lot more possibilities. Will it end in a climatic battle to overthrow a kingdom? Or in an exodus to another plane? Or time travel shenanigans effectively but not actually extending the deadline. Or a few years running a tavern?

I think the meaning intended was more along the lines of "The PCs will overthrow the duke" which is railroading them to that end. It might have a lot of agency between now and then. Maybe/probably enough to be called a sandbox. However we can still acknowledge the GM deciding what the PCs will eventually do, is a form of railroading.

Although we also can acknowledge that a sandbox can contain railroading without having enough railroading to be called a classical railroad (much less a pure railroad).

[farothel]

This is the way you play whenever you have your players in an hierarchy where the leaders of said hierarchy are NPCs. Star Trek is the one that immediately comes to mind, but I'm sure there are other examples. The players are ordered to do something, but have a lot of leeway on how they do it. And it's not a given that they will succeed.

I've GMed a Star Trek campaign and I just plot out the basic mission I want the players to go on and then a few key points along the way. Everything else depends on what the players do and even my main plot points can still change depending on the players. But they will at least start the mission as I planned it, because the captain (in this case Admiral, as they are on a station) said so.

[Pleh]

That is the conditional nature again but with a lot more possibilities. Will it end in a climatic battle to overthrow a kingdom? Or in an exodus to another plane? Or time travel shenanigans effectively but not actually extending the deadline. Or a few years running a tavern?

I would argue none of those are the End. The End is the predetermined apocalyptic cease and desist of reality. The End is the unmaking of whatever the players made of the time they had. Climactic battles, planar exoduses, time travel shenanigans, going out to the winchester, having a pint, and waiting for it all to blow over are all things that happen BEFORE the End.

However we can still acknowledge the GM deciding what the PCs will eventually do, is a form of railroading.

Yes, but I don't see a Predetermined End as being *intrinsically* a way of having a GM decide what the PCs will do. Rather, it is a declaration of what happens to the PCs as the game concludes.

I suppose there is room for us to debate and clarify the difference between what constitutes an Ending, and what constitutes an Epilogue. Is the Ending whatever actions the players last take before the game is retired? Is it the continuing consequences of whatever actions they took in the game?

I would contend that "rocks fall and everyone dies" isn't actually railroading, because it isn't dictating what the PCs do, but rather what happens to them. It is an example of stopping the train entirely, not forcing players along a path.

"You are taken prisoner" may be a better example of Railroading, though it begins to blur the line between what the characters do and what merely happens to them. The point that it becomes railroading is the fact that any time a character is taken prisoner, being taken prisoner may be something that is happening to them, but there isn't usually much reason they couldn't still attempt to do something to stop it from continuing to happen to them. Escape may not be in their power, but generally the premise of the game is that PCs shouldn't be forced to choose to surrender, nor should it be possible to knock them unconscious or manipulate their minds without following the rules for overwhelming them by force. Give them a Fortitude or a Will save to resist the compulsion that wants to strip their freedom.

Railroading as a verb is about the point at which something that happens to the PCs begins to rather illegally infringe on their ability to do things.

The telltale signs usually crop up around the question of justification. WHY couldn't the party evade the rocks that are falling, possibly surviving by minimizing the damage received? WHY couldn't the party resist arrest and fight to the death instead of surrendering to overwhelming force? When the answer typically devolves to, "the plot needs this to happen" or "the GM is tired of your antics," we see the Conflict of Interests between players that I was talking about earlier. The GM starts heavy handidly making things happen to the PCs so as to limit what they can do.

But I feel it is important to bear in mind that not everything that happens to PCs is Railroading, just because players aren't always fully in control of it. It really starts to become the Offense we refer to as Railroading when the justifications are based in what the GM wants to accomplish rather than in the logical consequences of the PCs actions.

Note that this also describes the contention between players who don't want GM charity, preferring rolls to kill them if the rules say so, and the GMs who try to fudge rolls in favor of the party so as not to spoil the fun. The conflict of interests motivates the GM to modify what happens to the PCs so it no longer reflects the cause and effect of what the PCs do and now are instead framed around what the GM wants the game to be like.

And again, it only becomes a problem when the goals one player is pursuing prohibit the other players from achieving the goals they are pursuing.

Which touches on Illusionism. If the player doesn't like the GM helping their PC with helpful dice fudging, but the GM figures, "what they don't know won't hurt them," the GM might get away with it, but that doesn't make it okay, because you are still undermining the goals the other player is pursuing, which in this case is to win or lose by their own merits. It is still a bad thing.

[OldTrees1]

I would argue none of those are the End. The End is the predetermined apocalyptic cease and desist of reality. The End is the unmaking of whatever the players made of the time they had. Climactic battles, planar exoduses, time travel shenanigans, going out to the winchester, having a pint, and waiting for it all to blow over are all things that happen BEFORE the End.

Yes, but I don't see a Predetermined End as being *intrinsically* a way of having a GM decide what the PCs will do. Rather, it is a declaration of what happens to the PCs as the game concludes.

I am still talking about zarionofarabel's usage of the words. I already agreed with you that "predetermined end" is a poor word choice. However I am talking about what zarionofarabel meant by it. Their example was "The DM deciding the PCs will slay the vampire". I agree the words can be used to mean something else. But zarionofarabel's meaning is describing the GM deciding what the PCs will, eventually, do.

Railroading as a verb is about the point at which something that happens to the PCs begins to rather illegally infringe on their ability to do things.

As a sandbox GM I have learned that we need a neutral connotation verb rather than restricting it to only "illegally infringe". When sandbox GMs goes too far the players ask for more railroading. So I have adopted a neutral connotation to that verb. Since they are asking "to reduce the player agency" because they have more than they prefer, therefore that is how I have started to define the verb railroading. This neutral definition can still describe the tyrant DM while also describing what the players ask for when a sandbox GM goes too far.

As usually, I agree with the rest of the post.

[zarionofarabel]

The End means, well, The End!

You know, when the adventure ends...

Let's take the Mass Effect Trilogy as an example. It has an ending...The End!

Play a good guy and save the universe! The End! Play a bad guy and...save the universe?!?...The End!

All I got to do was change the color of the special effects at the ending of the game...The End!

It, like all computer RPGs is 100% on the rails. Sure I got to change the color of The End! but that's about it.

Published modules are the same. They come with a predetermined ending. Like Mass Effect. Sure you can stab the vampire, or burn the vampire, or magic the vampire, or bore the vampire to death, but you have to defeat that vampire! If you choose to not do that then the module is useless.

The End!

Or is it...