Over in this thread I bitched about GMs who claim that they don't railroad when they patently do, and gave the example of the "lever in the room" scenario. I've come across another example which illustrates that way of thinking. (Pundit: I'd like to hear your thoughts on this one, because I think it strikes close to the "Swinishness" you complain about.)

Shamus Young, the guy who does DM of the Rings, wrote a decent article over here on his blog about railroading, and how he feels no shame at railroading the PCs a little. This is fair enough, and he earns points with me for acknowledging that he does railroad. On the other hand, in an edit to the article he states that:

Quotesome people seem to be confused by what I'm saying here, complaining that they wouldn't want to play a game where they couldn't change things. The whole point above is that there is no way to know about my changes. It wouldn't be a "princess is in another castle" moment, because they weren't expecting to rescue the princess just yet anyway. They don't see the rails because I only change things they don't know about.

which slightly misses the point: if you play around with the rails behind the curtain to avoid things impacting the players' game experience too much, that's fair enough, but you ought to bear in mind that some people will resent even that much GMly manipulation of the gameworld, and that you shouldn't brush off their concerns by saying "ah, what you don't know won't hurt you". If people were just upfront about saying "I'm going to railroad just a little, but I'll do it in a behind-the-scenes way so you shouldn't notice too much".

But I'm getting a little sidetracked. In his essay Shamus explains his reasons for railroading:

QuoteMy thinking has been that I want to create a thrilling story with the players as the central characters, and any subtle railroading that furthers that goal is highly desirable.

I think that the first part - "I want to create a story with the players as the main characters" - is something which most railroaders-in-denial will agree with, and that on some level - conscious or otherwise - it leads to the same conclusion as Shamus. It also hinges on the idea that it's possible to regard yourself as the "author" or "creator" of a story when you have no control over what the protagonists do. (I think this is the attitude that Ron Edwards rails against with his Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, but his ideas are so badly expressed it's hard to say.)

The author of a novel has absolute control over his characters. Between them, the director and scriptwriters of a movie or theatre production have nigh-absolute control over the characters too - sure, a pissy and influential actor might demand some tweaks, just as a pissy player in an RPG might demand some changes to the IC action because they feel that their character has been stiffed, but it's still the case that the GM in an RPG has vastly less control over the main protagonists - the PCs - than an author or director has. Railroading and other techniques which squash the ability of the players to genuinely impact the direction of the story are the main means open to the GM in a traditional game, and they tend to be unsatisfying unless everyone present is happy to go along for the ride.

There's really only three solutions for people desperate for story:

1: Be up front and honest about your railroading, with your players and with yourself. Don't necessarily have all the railroading happen under the player's noses - that nearly always hurts suspension of disbelief - but be honest that you are there to tell a story, and the PCs exist in the gameworld to wander around pushing the buttons and pulling the levers that make the story happen. I honestly think that a lot of people's problems with railroading come from them going into a game thinking "Oh, this is an RPG, it's going to be like D&D/WFRP/Runequest/whatever" or "Oh, this is a storytelling thing, I hope I get to make a meaningful impact on the story!" and getting burned by a railroading GM.

2: Give up on "story for story's sake". If the events of the game end up providing a good narrative, great, but don't count on it. Prioritise other things in your gaming and scratch your story itch through other means (such as story games).

3: Go all-out for story, make and play Story Games, and - here's the controversial bit - give up on the idea of "one player, one character, and the GM sets the scenario" altogether. Most Story Games adopt the "one player, one PC" model simply because they want to resemble RPGs for aesthetic reasons; they also always have a GM, who has far more power over the story than the players do (even with the limited power redistribution seen in games like Dogs In the Vineyard).

I think that railroading gets a bad name really. Sure, there's railroading and then there's railroading, but driving the action is part and parcel of most games and it's normally of the former type.

I think it comes down to this difference:

1) The PCs act and cause events and stories

vs

2) Events and stories cause the PCs to act

Which can be further diluted to:

1) The PCs create the world and story

vs

2) The world and story exists beyond the PCs effect on it

Quote from: One Horse TownI think that railroading gets a bad name really. Sure, there's railroading and then there's railroading, but driving the action is part and parcel of most games and it's normally of the former type.

I think it comes down to this difference:

1) The PCs act and cause events and stories

vs

2) Events and stories cause the PCs to act

Which can be further diluted to:

1) The PCs create the world and story

vs

2) The world and story exists beyond the PCs effect on it

I don't think "The world and story exists beyond the PCs' effect on it" is incompatible with "The PCs act and cause events and stories" by a long shot. It's perfectly possible to have a populated gameworld with stuff going on in the background independently of the PCs; just because you, as a GM, are deciding that, say, far-off Kingdom X has declared war with far-off Kingdom Y, and that's meant that Xian and Yian refugees are showing up in the PCs' neck of the woods, that does not mean you are railroading.

Now, if you decide that far-off Kingdom X has declared war with far-off Kingdom Y, and the PCs have to go and sort it out, and you then manipulate things to make sure the PCs do have to go and sort it out, that would be railroading.

Quote from: WarthurI don't think "The world and story exists beyond the PCs' effect on it" is incompatible with "The PCs act and cause events and stories" by a long shot. It's perfectly possible to have a populated gameworld with stuff going on in the background independently of the PCs; just because you, as a GM, are deciding that, say, far-off Kingdom X has declared war with far-off Kingdom Y, and that's meant that Xian and Yian refugees are showing up in the PCs' neck of the woods, that does not mean you are railroading.

Now, if you decide that far-off Kingdom X has declared war with far-off Kingdom Y, and the PCs have to go and sort it out, and you then manipulate things to make sure the PCs do have to go and sort it out, that would be railroading.

Course they're not incompatible and probably exist hand in hand in many campaigns. It's action (or proaction ) vs reaction though and i suggest that more railroading occurs in reaction than proaction. Shit, i'm spouting jargon now. This is why i don't normally get involved in these sorts of threads.

I think it's quite reasonable to say (for instance) "I'm the GM, and so I'm going to use my huge powers to make sure that the actions and choices of the players result in some interesting story ... but I obviously have no idea what that interesting story will be, setting out.  How could I, not knowing what material the players will be giving me?"

I guess it's sort of like the Iron Chef theory of GMing ... you see what secret ingredient the players hand you for the evening, and then you work your ass off to make a meal that features and highlights that secret ingredient.

At the same time, the players are seeing what secret ingredient you are giving them, and working their asses off to make something cool out of that.

I'm honestly not sure whether I'm agreeing with you, or disagreeing with you, or what.  You use strange phrases like "some people will resent even that much GMly manipulation of the gameworld" and I'm all like "WTF?  So you abandon your prep-work in order to improvise something better on the fly.  How is that anything other than bog-standard GMing technique?"  So I think I'm going to sit back and see what you think of what I say above, before going much further.

He's talking about the "moving clue"/"moving NPC" technique, Tony.

The GM controls the development of the game based on a concept of dramatic arc, and inserts/changes/improvises game elements to maintain the arc.

The "princess is in another castle" line is apparently something from Mario Bros.; I reckon the gist of it is that the GM might have several castles the PCs can storm, with various clues and misdirection. However, the players' decision regarding which castle to invade first is actually irrelevant; there will be no princess in the first or second; the princess in the third will turn out to be a doppelganger, setting off a mad rush to go back to the first castle and investigate the hidden second dungeon, etc.

Basically it's giving the players the illusion that such-and-such a decision matters, when it doesn't really.

Interesting thread!

Let me ask this then, to try and figure out what sort of a GM I am.  Let's say I've got an adventure planned for the evening.  I've plotted out a few likeley scenes which the PCs might encounter.  The players start at 'event 1' and take the session off into a total tangent of what I'd figured they would do.

Generally, my way of handling this is to think "Hmmm... okay, I figured the PCs would go to Point X and get the clue from a guy there.  However, they went to Point Z, so I'll just have someone there give them the same clue."

The concept, is that no matter which direction the PCs go in, I'll just move the 'clues' around so that they manage to find them, and keep the game moving forward.

So, is this 'railroading in-denial?'

EDIT: one quick note just to say that in a case above, if the PCs choose not to act on the 'clues' I present to them, I really don't care.  Often the game is much more amusing when the PCs go off on completely random tangents and I end up making it up as I go along.  My only point was that I'll 'move' the clues around to at least give them some semblance of 'something to do'.  Whether they take the bait is up to them.

Years ago, SteveD established conclusively that some form of railroading is inescapable and should be embraced enthusiastically.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBasically it's giving the players the illusion that such-and-such a decision matters, when it doesn't really.

'course it matters.  If you tackle the flame-castle first then your earliest encounters are with flame-beasties.  Entirely different story than if you tackle the ice-castle first.

Are you saying that it doesn't matter because that decision cannot short-cut the story from a novel-length to a chapter-length story?  Because that's an awfully odd thing to hold out for as the only way that decisions can matter.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYears ago, SteveD established conclusively that some form of railroading is inescapable and should be embraced enthusiastically.

Even though I'm willing to roll with whatever the players want to do, I tend to agree.  For me the real issues are when, how, and why you railroad and whether you tell your players.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYears ago, SteveD established conclusively that some form of railroading is inescapable and should be embraced enthusiastically.

Link?

I do agree, at least to some extent, that you can't avoid railroading in some form. At least, I've never been able to do it. Sometimes the players show up and they want to play, but they don't want to motivate the scenes. In those instances you have to toss things at them and see how they react. Whether that's technically railroading or not I don't know.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYears ago, SteveD established conclusively that some form of railroading is inescapable and should be embraced enthusiastically.

Steve was wrong.

-clash

Quote from: James McMurrayLink?

To an rpg.net post? With a Search function that's mentally ill? Impossible.

Clash, how so?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityTo an rpg.net post? With a Search function that's mentally ill? Impossible.

Clash, how so?

How can one railroad without tracks? If you don't have a plot in the first place, you can't possibly railroad.

From a post on RPG Lounge:


Here's how I run games - long ago I called it Situational GMing, and the name has gained aome currency over the net:

I set up NPCs and Factions with personalities, drives, goals, and resources. I run them according to these parameters.

I set up a culture wherin the PCs will interact with the NPCs.

I set up an intitial Situation, to which the PCs can interact in any way they choose.

I set up a couple other Situations which may or may not ever be used, depending on how the PCs react to the initial Situation.

I let the PCs in.

From that point on, I watch the interactions between PCs, NPCs, and Factions. From this I fashion occasional new Situations, which I drop into the game like depth charges. These Situations are created when needed from the NPC and Faction Parameters I set up at the beginning, depending on the actions of the PCs.

In practice, the game is a continual seesaw - GM acts, PCs react, PCs act, GM reacts, GM acts, PCs react, etc. The PCs do whatever they want and can afford resource-wise, but so do NPCs and Factions.

It's not the holy grail of gaming, but it works for me.

-clash

Quote from: Warthur2: Give up on "story for story's sake". If the events of the game end up providing a good narrative, great, but don't count on it. Prioritise other things in your gaming and scratch your story itch through other means (such as story games).

I don't fundamentally disagree with a lot of your points, but I think you overstate #2.

IME it's pretty easy to get a good story out of a non-railroaded game providing the GM has set things up so that likely actions result in an interesting narrative arc.

Yes, there's always the possibility of an anti-climax (e.g. accidental TPK in the first encounter) so to a certain extent I'm "giving up" on story because I'm not willing to save the party to ensure a story happens.

I'm also giving up on *my* story -- since there's no way to ensure that the PC's will act according to my expectations (if I even have expectations) but in most cases the story that happens is a good story by my basic criteria: if someone told it to me with very modest editing, I'd be entertained.

Depending on your definition of railroading, setting up the starting situation might be seen as a railroad, in which case I wonder if there's any GM discretion at all that wouldn't be considered a railroad.

I also wonder about this: Let's say the the GM is dedicated to making calls based on "what he thinks would happen" -- but in an ambiguous case, where there are several 'likely' possible calls, and *all* of them fit the 'realism' criteria, he has the option to choose an action that makes for "the best story."

Would choosing that call that's "best for the story" be railroading?

If the question isn't clear, I can give an example.

Cheers,
-E.