There are those out there that would say any preconcieved plot will lead to railroading.


I don't mind starting out on the tracks, just as long as I can jump off when I want. :haw:

Quote from: McrowThere are those out there that would say any preconcieved plot will lead to railroading.

Agreed there are those who say this, but it hasn't been my experience...

Quote from: McrowI don't mind starting out on the tracks, just as long as I can jump off when I want. :haw:

Very much agreed. I want the story to have a coherent setup and all the PC's to fit in and fit together.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: flyingmiceHow 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

The problem you face, in any of these debates, is that railroading is defined so loosely as to make anything railroading. I GM much the way you do Clash. I despise the Must get to Point A to get to Point B type games. It makes the adventures I write read more like story ideas and resource books than "Adventures". However, as Mike put it, Some people would define having a initial plot as railroading. I see it as backstory and setup. Player are free to wheel from there.

Bill

Quote from: TonyLBI'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.

We're talking past each other. My interpretation of Shamus's blog post is that he's advocating using behind-the-scenes railroading to gently neutralise the effects of the players' decisions in order to force the game back towards the story he was originally planning to tell - for example, he advocates writing in a new villain to do more-or-less the same thing the original villain was going to do.

Quote from: flyingmiceIt's not the holy grail of gaming, but it works for me.

-clash

That's my preferred style of GMing D&D! But some modicum of railroading will occur even here.

Lately, Buccaneerville on the Lawless Coast has been rocked by the power struggle between old timer Cpt. Baldric the Bald and the mysterious Zebulon and his Barque of Hooded Mages (TM). With whom will the PCs side?

Neither, it turns out. They decide on a whim that pirates are dull and make inland into the jungle for the hidden pyramid of Textjer'rteqb, which the GM had foolishly introduced as an inconsequential local color rumor.

The game is 3.x. The group plays once a month, not once a week. Given this, every night is supposed to be FUN. The decision to head for the jungle has been made 10 minutes into the game. 6 hours to go.

Question: what to do?

a) Railroad (and openly tell players as to why);

b) Waste the evening with walking PCs through boilerplate expedition prep and the statistical average of 2.79 equally boilerplate jungle encounters;

c) Shame us all by mad improv skillz... slightly hampered by equally mad flipping through assorted supplements for NPC/monsters stats (a Rakshaza would be cool in general and in a jungle in particular, but screwed if I have all its spells & abilities at my fingertips.)

Not easy.

Quote from: HinterWeltThe problem you face, in any of these debates, is that railroading is defined so loosely as to make anything railroading. I GM much the way you do Clash. I despise the Must get to Point A to get to Point B type games. It makes the adventures I write read more like story ideas and resource books than "Adventures". However, as Mike put it, Some people would define having a initial plot as railroading. I see it as backstory and setup. Player are free to wheel from there.

Bill

I can't see any use in defining railroading so that it's inclusive of pre-game setup and initial situation. That's just being absurd! That's like saying the future is entirely pre-ordained because the past is immutable. Thus all free will is an illusion. Pfft!

My own adventures are the same, Bill - NPCs, background, and initial situation. That's it. When I have run through my adventures more than once, I have had completely different outcomes each time.

-clash

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThat's my preferred style of GMing D&D! But some modicum of railroading will occur even here.

[clip]

a) Railroad (and openly tell players as to why);

b) Waste the evening with walking PCs through boilerplate expedition prep and the statistical average of 2.79 equally boilerplate jungle encounters;

c) Shame us all by mad improv skillz... slightly hampered by equally mad flipping through assorted supplements for NPC/monsters stats (a Rakshaza would be cool in general and in a jungle in particular, but screwed if I have all its spells & abilities at my fingertips.)

Not easy.

That's one of the reasons I won't run D&D 3.X, though I spent 20 years running other versions. It's just not improv-friendly. I just run games that are, where I can whip up an opponent in moments. My own games have tools built in to do just that. I make use of mod-able stock opponents, random inspiration tables, and quick and dirty chargen.

-clash

Quote from: zombenGenerally, 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?'

It depends.

- If the players had no idea that this clue existed, and it doesn't relate to something they are actively looking into, in my mind it falls into the category of a plot hook, in which case it's not railroading to dangle it in front of them: they can always choose to ignore it, as you say.

- If the players were aware that, say, information of the type they are looking for exists in the setting, and perhaps are aware that it would probably be in the possession of such-and-such an NPC, and they're actively looking for that information, then it's not necessarily railroading. If they went to place Z instead of place X because they had reason to believe the NPC or clue would be there, there's no problem with plonking it there - it just saves them the frustration of flailing around place Z before going to place X. In fact, I'd say that not doing so smacks of pixelbitching.

On the other hand, if the players say "we'll go to place Z first to do something else, and then we'll go to place X to find the clue," then it's kind of railroady to move the clue to Z, because you're imposing a strict order on the events that unfold despite the players' decisions.

- If the players were aware that the clue existed, but didn't care, but you gave it to them anyway, then that's railroading of a pretty lame sort: after they've expressed disinterest in the strand, you're throwing clues at them anyway in the vague hope they'll change their mind, which seems kind of petty.

Of course, if you're upfront and say "I've got a specific plot arc planned from this game, and I might massage events to move it along when necessary" at the beginning of the campaign, that's cool by me: I can choose to stay or leave depending on whether I'm up for that kind of game.

Quote from: -E.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.

The thing is, for me railroading still counts as railroading if you didn't plan the railroad before the game began. If you're going through the game and start massaging events to cause this narrative arc on an ad-hoc basis (eg: "Hmm, if X, Y, and Z happen then the players will end up in a climactic conflict with their nemesis soon, so let's have them happen"), I'd still consider it railroading. But maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.

Thinking about it, what I should have said was "Give up on coming up with a pre-planned story".

Quote from: WarthurThinking about it, what I should have said was "Give up on coming up with a pre-planned story".

Yep! 100% with you there! If you don't come in with a story, you can't even be tempted to move events along that line.

Part of the problem I see here is that what Shamus actually said isn't being quoted fully enough.

Take the 'princess is in another castle' issue.  I can read this a bunch of ways, some railroady, some not so railroady.

If the PC's were out specifically to rescue the princess, and they knew she had to be in one of three castles, clues provided need to be solved...

and they get it right and the GM fudges to move the princess elsewhere.

Pretty damn unfair, but reasonable perhaps if it was a blind guess and teh night was still young enough to run a second castle.

If they guessed wrong but the princess was there anyway... well, the players may not be into problem solving, the night could be half over... whatever.  Justafiable, if cheap.

Me? I may not even know where the princess is!  Of course, I'd probably only have one castle, so....


Now, having new NPC's take over where the old ones left off? What is the problem here again? Someone needs to be the bad guy.



I play like Clash does, only with even less prep. I still get one player who insists that I railroad the party. 'There is one right solution' problems and such.  Stupid, since I always present a problem, solutions are for PC's and players to work up.  I just shoot down the silly stuff. No, your shadowrunners are not going to assualt the building by means of hiring a horde of clowns to overwhelm security while you train rats to steal the paydata. Do you know how long it will take to train the rats?

I kid, I can't get my players to play Shadowrun....

Fun fact:  The James Bond 007 rulebook (Victory Games, 1983) specifically instructs the GM never to write an ending to their adventures.  You're told to leave the resolution of the scenario in the hands of the players.

Quote from: WarthurThe thing is, for me railroading still counts as railroading if you didn't plan the railroad before the game began. If you're going through the game and start massaging events to cause this narrative arc on an ad-hoc basis (eg: "Hmm, if X, Y, and Z happen then the players will end up in a climactic conflict with their nemesis soon, so let's have them happen"), I'd still consider it railroading. But maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.

Is there a line to be drawn somewhere in which the GM is "contributing" rather than "railroading"?  'cuz when I GM I do like to ... y'know ... have events happen, often with ulterior motive of making the game cooler.  Is that railroading?

Quote from: jrientsFun fact:  The James Bond 007 rulebook (Victory Games, 1983) specifically instructs the GM never to write an ending to their adventures.  You're told to leave the resolution of the scenario in the hands of the players.

Heh... I've often noted that in my notes for all of my Cthulhu games in the past many years, I usually put towards the 'end' (IE: the notes on the showdown with the Big Bad), "At this point, the PCs will probably figure out some way to blow the place up, so just roll with it."

Quote from: flyingmiceI can't see any use in defining railroading so that it's inclusive of pre-game setup and initial situation. That's just being absurd! That's like saying the future is entirely pre-ordained because the past is immutable. Thus all free will is an illusion. Pfft!

My own adventures are the same, Bill - NPCs, background, and initial situation. That's it. When I have run through my adventures more than once, I have had completely different outcomes each time.

-clash

No argument, I am just saying that using the precise methods you have outlined, I have been accused of railroading. Part is the "Frame" I place the characters in and the other is usually that I refer to the players actions as "plot". No, I do not force them to the "plot" have prepared, just as you pointed out, it is a series of disposable plot points or scenarios. I usually am refering to either my prep as "plot points" or the characters past actions and projected future actions as "plot".

I mean honestly, if a GM tries to strong arm his players they should let him know it is not cool with them. If he persists, leave. I used to hate the lead in for TSR adventures because they went like this:

"You are running through the swamp from angry villagers..."

ME: Ahh,  a swamp at night, that is dangerous. I turn back.

"You see a glowing pyramid in the distance and turn to go towards it"

ME: Is it out of the swamp? I said I was turning out of the swamp. Anyways, a glowing pyramid in a Euro-copy medieval culture...I am not going anywhere near it.

"You pass through the gate and approach the pyramid..."

ME: ARE YOU MAD!?!?! I bolt out of their trying to find where the villagers are so I can turn myself in.

"A trap door opens up and you fall into a crypt. What do you do?"

ME: ...ah,.... sigh.

Bill