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.

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

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Let's say that I start up a game with:

"You have the ring of power. The only way to destroy it is to throw it into Mount Doom. There are Dark Riders looking for you. The NPC wizard tells you to go meet a ranger a town or two over."

Is the fact that the PC's have a mission a railroad?

Cheers,
-E.

Ok, lets start by figuring out what is and what is not Railroading.

Railroading is NOT when the PCs are helpless to do something that they should not be able to do.
In other words, in the real world, you might be in a situation where your only option is to go from room A to room B; likewise, in an RPG having Room A lead to Room B is not railroading, as long as that was always the only real option.

What IS railroading is when the characters are unable to do something they should be able to do in the internal "realism" of the emulation of the game, just because it doesn't suit your plans for them.  In other words, they may have done something unexpected, figured something out too soon, etc, and so you actually change the pieces in the background so that they don't get their just reward.
Likewise, unless the options are actually illusory IN the real game being emulated, creating an illusory choice (where it appears that the PCs have a choice of where to go and that affects things, but in reality they don't) is railroading.  So if Space Villain Bloggs will have his hideout on Planet A if they go to Planet B, and on Planet B if they go to Planet A, that's railroading.

Railroading generally happens as an attempt at a surgical repair when the DM has fucked up. The solution for this is to have a DM not fuck up, or at least fuck up less often.  When a DM has fucked up, and the jig is up, I usually think its a better solution to let the jig be up and leave it at that.

So to summarize: creating an adventure scenario that is consistent within the emulation but leaves the PCs with limited options of what they are able to do is ok by me; but if the players somehow find an option that is credible and works to shortcut past these challenges, then trying to artificially break the consistency of the emulated world just to slow them down strikes me as bad cricket.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditRailroading is NOT when the PCs are helpless to do something that they should not be able to do.
In other words, in the real world, you might be in a situation where your only option is to go from room A to room B; likewise, in an RPG having Room A lead to Room B is not railroading, as long as that was always the only real option.

I'm not sure your definition accords with everyone elses.

Suppose I prepared a scenario in which the PCs are kidnapped by forces they couldn't possibly oppose, and dumped in room A with only one possible exit (to room B).  Suppose further that exit instantly locked behind them leaving them in room B with only one possible exit (room C) and so on and so on until room Z and beyond.  If I did that then I think many people would feel that I'd railroaded my players, even though all of the constraints were in the prep-work from the start.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo to summarize: creating an adventure scenario that is consistent within the emulation but leaves the PCs with limited options of what they are able to do is ok by me; but if the players somehow find an option that is credible and works to shortcut past these challenges, then trying to artificially break the consistency of the emulated world just to slow them down strikes me as bad cricket.

RPGPundit

Agreed. I don't think a restrictive starting scenario is railroading (I think a leading practice is to get the player's buy in... but either way...)

What about the gray area where the GM makes a call based on what he thinks is good for the story? In that case it's not a *strong* railroad, but it's not an impartial GM either.

Here's another gray area: You decide to break into a castle and steal the crown jewels. Neither you nor the GM fully know all the castle's defenses; but you do know that it's *very* hard to break into (or the jewels would have been stolen long ago).

Let's say your fellow PC has a ring of flying and decides to fly in a window and take the jewels -- and assumes no complications based an assumption that no one would expect a man to fly.

Now, it's anyone's guess whether or not the castle is set up to defend against magical incursion. There's a good case to be made that it might be. And the GM *could* declare an x% chance that it has applicable defenses and roll dice or something.

But the GM could also make a decision at the moment and say, "Of course they're set up to defend against that -- in this world plenty of things can fly." Is that railroading? Or just appropriate use of GM discretion? Does it make a difference if the GM believes that allowing the theft of the jewels would be bad for the story?

Cheers,
-E.

There is no use in trying to define it, not two people on this earth would see it the same way.

Quote from: McrowThere is no use in trying to define it, not two people on this earth would see it the same way.

I generally use a rule-of-thumb that says "It's railroading when the choices you're taking away are the ones the players wanted to make" ... which does mean that nobody defines it in practice in the same way, but means we can all agree on what it is in theory

Quote from: TonyLBwe can all agree on what it is in theory

I doubt it. :haw:

Quote from: SpikeI 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.  

Yes, I've had to deal with this too. It's crazy. I kept presenting the guy with open situations, and what does he do? He tries to spot the clue I supposedly hid. Or, when things don't go his way, he thinks I'm letting the villain escape on purpose to save him for an end boss fight.

No. All I do is set up the elements of a situation and administer their responses to player actions according to the rules of the game, common sense, and Robin Laws's GM Question #1: "What would be the most entertaining thing to happen right NOW?"

Quote from: TonyLBI'm not sure your definition accords with everyone elses.

Suppose I prepared a scenario in which the PCs are kidnapped by forces they couldn't possibly oppose, and dumped in room A with only one possible exit (to room B).  Suppose further that exit instantly locked behind them leaving them in room B with only one possible exit (room C) and so on and so on until room Z and beyond.  If I did that then I think many people would feel that I'd railroaded my players, even though all of the constraints were in the prep-work from the start.

I don't think that's quite the same -- my expectation of degrees of freedom in a dungeon is very different from my expectation in a more open environment.

I think the kidnapping at the beginning might well be a railroad (unless the GM cleared it with us earlier), but if the game began with "You wake up after being attacked by unknown forces in a dark chamber..." well, that's a pretty classic start.

I'm not saying no one could possibly have an issue with the (extreme) situation you've described but I'm not sure it's in quite the same category as most railroads.

Cheers,
-E.

E:  I think that, in general, the behaviors that get labelled "railroading" at the extremes are happily accepted in moderation.  It's not just "Behavior X," it's "Behavior X to a dysfunctional degree."  For instance ...

   Player:  "Oh man, we gotta get away from those goons!  Is there a way out the back?"
GM:  "Uh ... yeah sure, it's a seedy bar, there's always a way out the back ... but they're gonna chase you!"That, right there, would be an instance of the GM changing the game-world in order to lead toward what he considers a better story (in this case a rockin' chase scene).  Railroading?  Not to my eyes, not at that low a concentration.

Quote from: TonyLBE:  I think that, in general, the behaviors that get labelled "railroading" at the extremes are happily accepted in moderation.  It's not just "Behavior X," it's "Behavior X to a dysfunctional degree."  For instance ...

   Player:  "Oh man, we gotta get away from those goons!  Is there a way out the back?"
GM:  "Uh ... yeah sure, it's a seedy bar, there's always a way out the back ... but they're gonna chase you!"That, right there, would be an instance of the GM changing the game-world in order to lead toward what he considers a better story (in this case a rockin' chase scene).  Railroading?  Not to my eyes, not at that low a concentration.

I agree -- although I'm not sure where the OP draws the line... I think the example you gave above might fall into his definition of railroading.

From a practical standpoint I think the rule is, "play with people who have about the same tolerance for GM decisions as you do, whenever possible."

And, hopefully, to have a broad tollerance range (or one might find oneself with very few potential gaming groups).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBIs 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?

No, but expecting a particular reaction from the player characters is.

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

[/QUOTE]
This is almost exactly how I run my games.

For instance, just a bit ago, I spent some time detailing what the other major factions in the world have been doing while the PCs have been away looking for a Council Staff.

I have no idea what they're going to do next.  I've got a few fun plot hooks, but whether or not they jump at any of them is up to them.

-O

Quote from: WarthurNo, but expecting a particular reaction from the player characters is.

Ah ... playing both sides of the chess-board.  "I'll introduce this princess, and then he'll have his knight fall in love with her, and then I'll have her kidnapped ... it'll be SO BOSS!"

Gotcha and agreed.

Quote from: -E.I'm not sure what you're saying.

Let's say that I start up a game with:

"You have the ring of power. The only way to destroy it is to throw it into Mount Doom. There are Dark Riders looking for you. The NPC wizard tells you to go meet a ranger a town or two over."

Is the fact that the PC's have a mission a railroad?

Yes. But if you said upfront that the game is going to be mission-based the players have bought tickets, sat down in their seats, and are ready for the ride. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you didn't give the players that heads up, you've tossed them onto a cattletruck on a moving train. If you then turn around and deny that you're railroading... you're the sort of railroader-in-denial that sets my teeth on edge.