Scope of railroading - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Noon Sep 24, 2014 2:35:35	I think there's maybe a kind of line in the sand, perhaps a circle drawn, folk have about when it comes to what is a railroad (what's inside the circle) and what isn't. I'm going to pitch the idea the circle drawn is really not big enough. Let's start at a world. Okay, fair enough you might say 'I'm gunna play D&D with setting X', or maybe 'I'm gunna play D&D'. The thing is, even the latter kind of informs that it's going to be in some kind of setting, even if the GM made it up last weekened. And players will play in that setting - it's telling you that. So you don't have to put especial effort into telling anyone that hey, you will be playing inside setting X - because you kind of just said they (if they join the campaign) will be playing inside it. So what about once we get to a module? This is my charitable reading - that people are trying to do it the same way. As if they don't have to say anything - as much as were playing in setting X, hey, here's a module and...were playing in that module. But nobody, apparently, has to say that, even. Now props to anyone who actually says "Hey, I got this module and next Saturday we ARE playing it (or ya aint playin' at all!)!". That's a fair heads up that to play, you are not just playing in setting X, but somehow you have to playin within' the module - how do you play 'within' a module? I mean with a world it's clear enough how you play within that, but how do you play within a 'module'? I mean it's a metagame conceit for a start, the idea of a module (unless in your game world NPC's mention modules - does Deadpool live there?). But let's even ignore potential dysfunction of how you play within a module and say atleast that's a heads up - play within the module or don't play. But let's talk about the folk who don't say that in advance. The line between what is or isn't railroading seems to be drawn within that. That whatever is in the module, players HAVE to head toward - we just can't let go of the module, hell no! But by gum! Don't just tell players they have to stay on the cart heading towards what's in the module - how could that be legitimate! You can see how the line gets drawn right between the players HAVE to go interact with the modules contents, vs actually forcing the damn players to interact with the modules contents. Which is exactly what you want to do if you only want the players to interact with those contents, but golly, you don't like seeing someone actually making it the case they will only interact with those contents. Now I can hear you "But if they don't go to the module contents, nothing will happen!!!". But let's pretend like that's not a problem - like, it doesn't exist as a problem. Let's just pretend that for now. And let us get back to being utterly focused on making play that is all about this module, but not wanting to force play to be all about this module. Like trying to draw a line through the middle, so wanting play to only ever be on tracks towards the module contents is like totally not railroading - but doing anything that makes play only ever be on tracks towards the module contents - by gosh, that's a disdainful railroading thing! I like to imagine it as a kind of zit - that suddenly it'll pop "Oh crap, yeah, if I'm all focused on playing having to be about the module contents, then I'm railroading from the get go!", even if that's followed up with "But if they go the other way, what the hell do I do then?" But I've never really guessed the internet responce to this sort of thing - it's always like hearding cats, the responce always seem to shoot off to some angle I never actually guessed. So it's kind of pointless me trying to do any more of the conversation by myself, it's time to see those unexpected angles! Or did the zit get popped already?
#2 Shasarak Sep 24, 2014 3:16:00	A module is like a Theme Park. And if you are going to a Theme Park then you had better play on the attractions because you do not want to be that guy waiting in the car while everyone else is having the fun.
#3 Darth_Caffeineus Sep 24, 2014 4:07:44	~~What you call Railroading, I call tight writing, good attention to mood and theme, and heavy narrative focus on the internal motivations and story arcs of the player characters. What you call metagaming, I call fully recognizing, honoring and embracing the tropes, conventions and motifs of the heroic fantasy genre which are essentially the laws of physics of the fictional universe the game takes place in. What someone might call open world/totally non-story driven DM style, I call a really dull, meandering and unengaging D&D game experience. So I guess its a mater of opinion.
#4 Shiroiken Sep 24, 2014 5:13:58	Assuming it's not a bad adventure (I tried to stop using the word "module" since the optional features of the game are supposed to be called that too), you should be able to modify the adventure based on the actions of the PCs. If it's a sandbox adventure, great, because the players just do what they want until they get around the adventure content. If it's an event adventure, then the events occur without PC interference while they do other meaningless things. Unfortunatly, there are few bad adventures (wait, the PCs CAN'T kill this NPC the adventure puts into danger in Chapter 1, because he's the villain for chapers 5-7), and you need to figure out ways to either railroad (hopefully without the players being aware) or use "cut scenes" (which most players detest). I've generally found that most players don't mind being railroaded, so long as they can't see the tracks. If I tell players that I'm running Temple of Elemental Evil, then they know what is expected of them and seldom go off the printed adventure deliberatly. Of course, a few d-bags want to go off the rails for the sole purpose of making the DM jump through hoops.
#5 dmgorgon Sep 24, 2014 6:38:16	When a module is run properly the players shouldn't be able to tell if they are playing within the bounds of the module or not.
#6 iserith Sep 24, 2014 7:01:20	Noon wrote:
#7 SteveMND Sep 24, 2014 7:05:40	Noon wrote:
#8 Chiisai_Usagi Sep 24, 2014 7:09:34	Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
#9 Beldak_Serpenthelm Sep 24, 2014 7:22:26	Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
#10 Orethalion Sep 24, 2014 7:29:10	Noon wrote:
#11 DemoMonkey Sep 24, 2014 7:36:58	Can someone tell me the actual question - in one sentence or less - that is being asked here?
#12 Chiisai_Usagi Sep 24, 2014 7:39:36	Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
#13 CCS Sep 24, 2014 7:41:00	For me, presentation wise, running an adventure module is really no different than running something I've written up myself. Either way: 1) I have a "plan" of how things will (idealy) go. 2) I know the matériel well enough that I often just have a few note cards for key npc stats/names etc on my end of the table. Often times the players won't even know they're running through a module. 3) players will often do things contrary to "the plan". Sometimes they do so intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. I'm OK With that & often invest some thought into considering the "what if...." And if the players continue to truly move away from an adventure? Well then - I'm prepping something different for next week....... ~~~~~~~ And that, choice of action, is generally how it goes when I'm a player as well. The exception being when we decide to do something specific - say Tomb of Horrors. Ok, in that case, we won't be hairring off to WaterDeep 1/2 way through to spend a few sessions dealing with the thieves guild
#14 Kazadvorn Sep 24, 2014 10:12:03	The modules you buy today... or at least the ones I've seen recently... are more 'railroads' than they were back in the day. In the AD&D days, when you built a simple 'Dungeon' it wasn't just a strait line of rooms and corridors leading from the intro encounter to the boss encounter. There were different paths and levels... different sections with different inhabitants... you might have different themes either by area or level. From the entry way, you'd try to have at least two or three directions the players could go.. each leading to a different section with a different type of challenge. The players could start down one path, turn around and come back... try a different path or head back deeper into the first path. You might hit a set of stairs or a tunnel leading down... you had the option of going deeper in, or continuing to explore the first level.
#15 iserith Sep 24, 2014 10:29:46	Linear plots and linear dungeons aren't in and of themselves railroading though. They're just examples of what I would call lazy and uninspired design. Railroading is about forcing someone to make a particular choice or subverting their choice to fit a particular agenda of the DM during the course of game play. If a player decides to engage with a linear storyline or explore a linear dungeon, that's not railroading. Similarly, it's not railroading if there is an expectation of the players that the DM will engage in illusionism techniques to enhance the game. I don't particuarly like illusionism or linear design, but that doesn't make it "railroading."
(Reply to #14) SteveMND	Kazadvorn wrote:
#17 sleypy Sep 24, 2014 12:46:26	I don't really get what your problem is with the module. Everyone knows a modules contains adventure hooks, adventure locations and NPCs. It isn't railroading someone just because the DM didn't do a line by line review for the Players to sign off on. Using your logic the DM first started to railroad players when they inviting them over to the house on a particular day.
#42 Orethalion Sep 26, 2014 8:41:16	iserith wrote:
#43 bawylie Sep 26, 2014 8:53:29	I guess my follow-up question is: at what point do the players' choices cross the line between unfettered and illusionism? or at what point does the DM cross that line?
#44 Orethalion Sep 26, 2014 8:59:38	bawylie wrote:
#45 iserith Sep 26, 2014 9:03:59	bawylie wrote:
#46 Ahglock Sep 26, 2014 9:22:11	Trying to turn almost every story the DM puts forth as railroading is about the same as turning all player agency into problem player douchetastic actions where they justify why they stole from the party or caused other disruptive actions because they were role playing their character.
#47 Gnarl Sep 26, 2014 9:55:06	What's wrong with railroading anyways? As soon as there's an objective in the adventure, you're railroading the players. If there are intermediate steps to reach your objective, you're railroading your players. And if you don't think about the logical intermediate paths your players might take, you end up with a rubbish inconsistent adventure. Using a little bit of railroading is what ensure the consistency of your adventure. And seriously, as long as your players are having fun, aren't you doing the right thing as a DM?
(Reply to #47) Ahglock	Gnarl wrote:
#49 iserith Sep 26, 2014 10:29:13	Gnarl wrote:
#50 Gnarl Sep 26, 2014 10:33:07	Ahglock wrote:
#51 iserith Sep 26, 2014 10:42:48	Gnarl wrote:
#52 Orethalion Sep 26, 2014 10:47:39	Gnarl wrote:
#53 Orethalion Sep 26, 2014 10:50:44	iserith wrote:
#54 sleypy Sep 26, 2014 11:06:41	bawylie wrote:
#82 Gnarl Sep 30, 2014 6:34:15	Noon wrote:
#83 Gnarl Sep 30, 2014 6:38:36	Emerikol. wrote:
#84 Orethalion Sep 30, 2014 7:05:07	Noon wrote:
#85 Gnarl Sep 30, 2014 7:42:05	Orethalion wrote:
#86 Pangur Sep 30, 2014 8:51:19	Gnarl wrote:
#87 Orethalion Sep 30, 2014 10:45:00	Gnarl wrote:
#88 Noon Sep 30, 2014 19:09:31	Shiroiken wrote:
#89 Noon Sep 30, 2014 19:35:39	Gnarl wrote:
#90 Gnarl Sep 30, 2014 22:36:48	Noon wrote:
#91 Pangur Oct 01, 2014 2:44:35	Noon wrote:
#92 Orethalion Oct 01, 2014 3:10:40	Pangur wrote:
#93 Noon Oct 01, 2014 22:00:36	Gnarl - then it's 'they must get to C'. It's a railroad*. Your ending a session when they drift too far so as to make a new A,B,C is just enforcing that they'll be back on their way to some sort of C next time. Why you need them to be going to C so badly, I don't know? Is it some kind of payoff for you, as GM? Could you invent a payoff for yourself that doesn't require PC's go to any particular letter? What do you get out of GM'ing - you might say "I just like to see what the players do and/or see them happy", but with such a fixation on C, I don't buy that really. Do you just need to conclude a definite story? I mean I get the feeling of that need, if not the implementation. Pangur, "This is the situation, what do you do?"
#94 Gnarl Oct 01, 2014 22:12:03	Noon wrote:
#95 Pangur Oct 02, 2014 0:01:36	Noon wrote:
#96 Noon Oct 02, 2014 3:06:52	Gnarl wrote:
#97 Uchawi Oct 02, 2014 3:19:01	The railroad, the highway, or intersecting series of roads is what the DM has prepared. How often you deviate from it places a burden and resposibility on both sides of the table. If a player constantly deviates to unknown roads it can have a negative impact, just like a DM that is very controlling. So there has to be some type of understanding at the table.
#98 Orethalion Oct 02, 2014 3:25:04	Noon wrote:
#99 Noon Oct 02, 2014 3:33:27	Pangur wrote:
#100 Noon Oct 02, 2014 3:35:24	Uchawi wrote:
(Reply to #81) arnwolf666	Emerikol. wrote:
#102 Pangur Oct 02, 2014 5:00:09	Noon wrote:
#103 iserith Oct 02, 2014 5:51:29	It's very simple: An adventure set up with scene A leading to scene B to scene C is a linear plot. It is not a "railroad" nor is the DM inherently "railroading" by preparing and running a linear plot. Using a linear plot is just a technique, neither good nor bad. Railroading is not a specific technique - it is an outcome. It is what you have when a technique is used to subvert player choice in a way that violates the social contract. That is bad. Players don't agree to be "railroaded." Rather, they agree to follow a linear plot or to allow the DM to use the illusion of choice to keep them on his prepared materials. If they agree, then there can be no railroading. If they do not agree and somehow get pushed down that linear plot anyway, then they are being railroaded (and that's bad).
#104 Noon Oct 02, 2014 6:01:42	Orethalion wrote:
#105 Noon Oct 02, 2014 6:24:56	Pangur wrote:
#106 Orethalion Oct 02, 2014 7:08:35	Noon wrote:
#107 Pangur Oct 02, 2014 7:34:20	Noon wrote:
(Reply to #103) Finieous	iserith wrote:
#109 iserith Oct 02, 2014 7:50:31	Finieous wrote:
#110 Finieous Oct 02, 2014 8:02:31	iserith wrote:
#111 iserith Oct 02, 2014 8:12:54	Finieous wrote:
#112 Finieous Oct 02, 2014 8:26:22	iserith wrote:
#113 iserith Oct 02, 2014 8:49:23	Finieous wrote:
(Reply to #113) Finieous	We seem to have reached the part of the discussion where we simply repeat ourselves, so I'll bow out. Thanks.
#115 Orethalion Oct 02, 2014 9:04:23	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #115) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#117 Bloodscythe Oct 02, 2014 9:45:54	I'm going to have to disagree with the very wide net cast by this lax use of the term railroading. If players agree to play a module, and in the course of playing the module, they deviate to such a degree that they would leave the confines of the module, using narrative or leading questions to redirect the players back into the module is not railroading. The players agreed to confirm to the module. They may be deviating simply because they don't know the specifics of the module, which is expected. Why should the players know the specifics about an adventure they're not DMing? Railroading is explicit subversion of choice. A player doesn't want to pick up a cursed sword because he's cautious... the DM hoped he'd fall for the trap but didn't so the DM has the character roll a dex check, and on a failure, stumbles into the sword anyway. That's railroading. A player doesn't want his character to pick up a cursed sword because he's cautious and instead keeps it on himself in case it's worth keeping. The DM uses a monster to disarm the character, hoping the character will draw the cursed sword. It is now the player's choice on how his character reacts to being disarmed and whether the character uses the cursed sword. That's not railroading. Using a real world example, If I tell several friends that I will be DMing a game of D&D at my place at 6 pm, and they say they will be there ready to play. The group of friends don't show up at 6 so I call one of them... oh, they all went to where I used to live. It is not removing their choice by correcting them and setting them on the path that gets them to the agreed upon destination. They just weren't 100% certain of the details and needed some help to arrive at the correct destination. It was a destination that the players agreed to work toward. How they get there is indeed their choice.. they can take any roads or routes available to them to arrive at my place, I do not tell them which roads they can or can't take or how fast they must or must not drive, or if they can only arrive at my place by taking left turns... but I do stipulate that my place is the goal and they should actively take steps to attain the goal that they agreed upon. Providing leading questions and guidance in a module is not railroading. If such a vague notion were true, then all things are railroading that don't provide infinite choices. DM asks if the players want to play Module X. The following is true of Module X: it details the locations A, B, and C. The players agree to play Module X. DM: Your character can go to A, B, or C. Player: my character goes to D. DM: Though D exists in the game world, it wasn't one of the choices in the module. Please choose A, B, or C. Player: Stop railroading me, man.. I'm going to D. This isn't an example of railroading. The players agreed to play the module. The DM not allowing the players to choose option D is not railroading because the option isn't available. The players have choice, admittedly constrained by the module, but those choices aren't predetermined by the DM. The players still make them. They just don't have access to infinite choices.
#118 Orethalion Oct 02, 2014 9:54:55	Bloodscythe wrote:
#119 Gnarl Oct 02, 2014 10:02:18	Noon wrote:
#120 bawylie Oct 02, 2014 10:25:54	It sounds to me as though Noon will declare Railroading (or elements of railroading) any game that's not a complete free-form sandbox hex crawl. I think I see his point. I remain unconvinced that any railroading at all is unequivocally bad.
(Reply to #120) Bloodscythe	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #119) Bloodscythe	Gnarl wrote:
#123 Pangur Oct 02, 2014 11:13:43	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #123) bawylie	Pangur wrote:
#125 Brock_Landers Oct 02, 2014 12:14:28	I never prep more than one session in advance (except for an overall theme/goal, blah-blah), whatever the players choose to do, affects the next session, they may choose to go to straight to Pandemonium to try to find the Unseelie Court, or go to Tir Na Og to deal with the civil war. Or say screw the whole thing, let's kick it in Sigil and get trashed, their choice.
#126 ankiyavon Oct 02, 2014 13:12:06	bawylie wrote:
#127 Brock_Landers Oct 02, 2014 13:14:47	ankiyavon wrote:
(Reply to #126) bawylie	@ankiyavon Is that association due to an absence of consent? Does consent play a role in establish the difference between linear design and railroad behavior? Or a partial role? Maybe they're distinct on their own but overlap w/o consent....
#129 ankiyavon Oct 02, 2014 13:36:15	bawylie wrote:
#130 Brock_Landers Oct 02, 2014 13:39:32	bawylie wrote:
#131 Pangur Oct 02, 2014 13:53:17	Brock_Landers wrote:
#132 DemoMonkey Oct 02, 2014 14:17:31	A linear adventure is not railroading, as long as the players have the option to say "Screw it. We don't CARE if the armies of Orcus will overrun the land if we don't rescue the guy who has the map that leads to the secret cave that holds the artifact arrow that lets us kill the guardian of the Mirror of Transcendence that will stop him. We have a flying boat and we want to be pirates!" If you can turn away from the whole adventure without it reappearing in front of you like Gothos, you aren't being railroaded. If you choose to take part in the adventure however, even if it has a linear plotline, you aren't being railroaded. You have chosen to be there.
(Reply to #126) Bloodscythe	ankiyavon wrote:
#134 Noon Oct 02, 2014 15:11:29	Orethalion wrote:
#135 DemoMonkey Oct 02, 2014 15:19:18	Noon As you yourself said in the OP: "Now I can hear you "But if they don't go to the module contents, nothing will happen!!!". But let's pretend like that's not a problem - like, it doesn't exist as a problem. Let's just pretend that for now." So by your own parameters, you really can't fault anyone in this thread for not considering that a problem.
#136 Noon Oct 02, 2014 15:52:09	Pangur wrote:
#137 ankiyavon Oct 02, 2014 15:53:29	Bloodscythe wrote:
#138 Noon Oct 02, 2014 16:15:17	iserith wrote:
#139 bawylie Oct 02, 2014 16:19:56	"'Railroading' is not just 'a social contract breach', otherwise ALL social contract breaches are railroads. That makes no sense!" I don't think that holds true. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Looking specifically at linear design, is a maze a railroad? Or is railroading a behavior?
#140 Shasarak Oct 02, 2014 16:28:09	Noon wrote:
#141 Noon Oct 02, 2014 16:22:12	Bloodscythe wrote:
#142 Beldak_Serpenthelm Oct 02, 2014 16:30:27	Noon wrote:
#143 Noon Oct 02, 2014 16:40:11	Gnarl wrote:
#144 iserith Oct 02, 2014 16:46:35	Noon wrote:
#145 Noon Oct 02, 2014 16:52:30	You can't railroad someone away from a nonexistent option, but if you define railroading as simply "denying options", then anything that doesn't explicitly allow for infinite options is by his definition, railroading. D&D can't even implicitly provide infinite options. Some things just aren't possible. And even when something is within the realm of possibility, you can't normalize everything to a 1 in 20 chance.
#146 Noon Oct 02, 2014 16:59:10	Brock_Landers wrote:
#147 Noon Oct 02, 2014 16:58:26	Shasarak wrote:
#148 Shasarak Oct 02, 2014 17:03:52	Noon wrote:
#149 Gnarl Oct 02, 2014 17:04:59	@Noon: You're pushing it to extremes. You're basically saying that whenever the DM isn't passive, he's railroading. It's absurd. A DM is not a puppet that rolls the dice for the bad guys whenever you ask him to. Players: "We want to start a thieves' guild." DM: "No problem. But you know that the other thieves' guilds are not going to let you start one without a fight." By your definition, that DM is railroading. The DM just defined an objective for you. But what did the DM actually do? He just used your idea of starting a thieves' guild as an adventure hook. And he was right to do it because that's his job. And the worst is, you admitted that's exactly what you want a DM to do. You mentioned how boring it is when the DM just lets you watch trees. If a DM needs to be passive, then you're the one to blame when you're watching trees. You should have forced your little puppet (the DM) to make something happen. If you don't want objectives, you can't expect the DM to make your life miserable. It would look too much like some kind of adventure with an actual plot. You seriously need to make up your mind. What's worse? Watching trees or having the DM throw a few challenges at you as you wander about the world? Be careful with you answer. As soon as the DM throws a challenge at you, he gave you an objective: overcome the challenge. And it's not the good kind of objective that your character decided. It's the evil railroading one.
#150 Finieous Oct 02, 2014 17:08:01	iserith wrote:
#151 iserith Oct 02, 2014 17:17:01	Finieous wrote:
#152 Noon Oct 02, 2014 17:23:29	iserith wrote:
#153 Noon Oct 02, 2014 17:29:42	Shasarak wrote:
#154 iserith Oct 02, 2014 17:32:38	Railroading by definition is not acceptable. It describes a problematic behavior, a violation of the social contract. You don't "agree to be railroaded." That makes no sense whatsoever. You can, however, agree to follow a linear plot, stay confined within a particular defined scenario, an adventure path or the like. It is that agreement which means you are not being railroaded. I know colloquially a lot of people like to use "railroad" or "rail" to describe linear plots or the like, but that is not correct even if we get the person's point. If I talk to my group and we agree to play the Age of Worms adventure path, then that means they agree to start in the town of Diamond Lake and eventually face off against Kyuss the Wormgod when they are sufficiently powerful and have gotten to that point in the plot. Those constraints are not railroading, nor is it railroading for me to remind them of their agreement should they, for some reason, decide to stop pursuing that plot to become pirates. Now, when I tell them we have a sandbox campaign and they can do whatever they want, only to be constantly embroiled in the plots of the Ebon Triad and eventually face Kyuss despite any of the other choices to the contrary, then I am railroading. I have violated the social contract of that game.
#155 Finieous Oct 02, 2014 17:38:17	iserith wrote:
#156 Gnarl Oct 02, 2014 17:40:48	iserith wrote:
#157 ORC_Cricket Oct 02, 2014 17:42:12	We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
#158 iserith Oct 02, 2014 17:45:46	Finieous wrote:
#159 iserith Oct 02, 2014 17:49:15	Gnarl wrote:
(Reply to #158) Finieous	iserith wrote:
#161 iserith Oct 02, 2014 17:56:35	Finieous wrote:
(Reply to #161) Finieous	iserith wrote:
#163 Shasarak Oct 02, 2014 18:07:42	Noon wrote:
#164 iserith Oct 02, 2014 18:09:59	Finieous wrote:
#165 Noon Oct 02, 2014 18:18:04	Gnarl wrote:
#166 Noon Oct 02, 2014 18:27:04	iserith wrote:
#167 iserith Oct 02, 2014 18:30:28	Noon wrote:
#168 Noon Oct 02, 2014 18:52:55	iserith wrote:
#169 iserith Oct 02, 2014 18:56:21	I don't leave Greenrest during the sacking of the town because I agreed to play the module. There's no need to have a word to explain me keeping my agreement. Nobody forced me into deciding who to fight while in Greenrest or when to rest or which villagers to save (I saved a ton of them) or whether to duel Cyanwrath or how to go about fighting a way over-level dragon. But one thing is for certain: I was going to engage with the material that was being presented instead of going off to be a pirate. That is because I agreed to play HotDQ. I made choices and kicked ass and was not in any way railroaded.
#170 grendel111111 Oct 02, 2014 20:11:15	So Noon as far as I can see you are saying every game of D and D must be, by default, a universe sized sand box with no DM input. Anything less is railroading. So we have 2 players and a DM at the table going to play HotDQ. and they head to Greenret. Ahead they see a gragon attacking the town: Player 1: This is bull you're rail roading us. we decide to head in the other direction to safety. DM: OK you head off down the road and as you travel you see a man by the side of the road next to a cart with a broken wheel. Player 2: What the hell. another railroad. I kick the man to death and walk over his bloody corpse. We carry on down the road. DM: As you keep going a man comes running out of the forest asking for help. Player 1: stop right there. We're not falling for another of your railroads, we turn left and head into the forest. DM: Ahead of you you hear russling in the bushes.... Player 2: screw this we burn the forest to the ground, nice try, what happens next. DM: I don't know why don't you tell me what you would like to do, it's all up to you...... Player 1: I want to raid a goblin encampment. Player 2: That sounds fun, lets go. DM: OK let me just sketch up a quick map (Player 2 mumbles about the DM's lack of planning). DM: So having burnt the forest to the ground you head off over a convienient mountain ridge and see on the crest of the next hill a goblin encampment. Player 1: Now we're talking, we approach carefully. DM: you see an encampment of about 8 tents surrounded by a high wall made from wooden stakes. There are 2 goblins guarding the main gate each holding a short bow. A foul stench drifts from the encampment in your direction. Player 1: Ok not cool. What the hell, you are just trying to make us fight those guards, that is uncool railroading. Player 2: Yes, and the walls are only there to stop us walking into the encampment from any direction. This is railroading at it's worst. DM: OK. You clearly do not need a DM and can just make up what you want on your own. I'll see you later. Player 1: great now we are free to do anything we want with out being railroaded. Player 2: OK so I am running into the encampment. Player 1: No stop railroading the game, your just as bad as the DM doing things that aren't exactly what I want. We leave the encampment and find a tent with 2 kobolds in it to kill. Player 2: Who is railroading now.
#171 Gnarl Oct 02, 2014 21:37:09	Noon wrote:
#172 Finieous Oct 02, 2014 22:21:33	Gnarl wrote:
#173 Orethalion Oct 02, 2014 22:47:04	Noon wrote:
#174 Pangur Oct 03, 2014 0:01:09	Finieous wrote:
#175 Pangur Oct 03, 2014 2:34:39	Noon wrote:
(Reply to #174) Finieous	Pangur wrote:
#177 Gnarl Oct 03, 2014 6:47:04	Finieous wrote:
#178 Gnarl Oct 03, 2014 6:58:06	Finieous wrote:
#179 Gnarl Oct 03, 2014 7:17:09	Pangur wrote:
(Reply to #178) Finieous	Gnarl wrote:
#181 Pangur Oct 03, 2014 7:49:40	Gnarl wrote:
#182 Brock_Landers Oct 03, 2014 9:06:16	Gnarl wrote:
#183 Orethalion Oct 03, 2014 9:27:11	Brock_Landers wrote:
#184 Brock_Landers Oct 03, 2014 9:31:38	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #137) Bloodscythe	ankiyavon wrote:
(Reply to #183) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#187 Orethalion Oct 03, 2014 9:47:04	Bloodscythe wrote:
#188 Brock_Landers Oct 03, 2014 9:52:31	Orethalion wrote:
#189 Orethalion Oct 03, 2014 9:53:39	Brock_Landers wrote:
#190 Brock_Landers Oct 03, 2014 9:58:28	Orethalion wrote:
#191 DemoMonkey Oct 03, 2014 10:01:08	I no longer know what this argument is actually about.
#192 Orethalion Oct 03, 2014 10:13:48	Brock_Landers wrote:
#193 Orethalion Oct 03, 2014 10:14:58	DemoMonkey wrote:
#194 Bloodscythe Oct 03, 2014 10:46:40	So to get us back on track (pardon the pun)... We are discussing what constitutes "railroading", and whether it is unilaterally detrimental.
#195 DemoMonkey Oct 03, 2014 11:03:26	"So to get us back on track (pardon the pun)... We are discussing what constitutes "railroading", and whether it is unilaterally detrimental." See, that's clear. Thank you Bloodscythe! It's railroading if the players only choice - not best, or most pleasant, or most profitable, but ONLY - choice is to follow the DMs pre-determined plotline, or not play at all. By that definition, it is unilaterally detrimental.
#196 sleypy Oct 03, 2014 11:48:57	Bloodscythe wrote:
#202 Noon Oct 03, 2014 18:08:02	grendel111111 wrote:
#203 Noon Oct 03, 2014 17:48:09	I have no idea why people think it's some kind of defence to say they didn't understand anything, when it includes 'I wouldn't say you were railroaded'. Yes, Isereth, your fingers are in your ears lalala you can't hear me. I get it.
#204 Noon Oct 03, 2014 18:10:25	Orethalion wrote:
#205 iserith Oct 03, 2014 18:16:15	Noon wrote:
(Reply to #202) grendel111111	Noon wrote:
#207 Noon Oct 03, 2014 18:21:00	Bloodscythe wrote:
#208 Noon Oct 03, 2014 18:39:14	grendel111111 wrote:
#209 Noon Oct 03, 2014 18:50:03	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #208) grendel111111	Noon wrote:
#211 grendel111111 Oct 03, 2014 19:29:19	So Noon is your issue that a DM you play with doesn't do a session 0 to make sure that everyone is on board with how the game will run. I think most people you are argueing with do exactly that.
#212 Orethalion Oct 03, 2014 19:48:50	Noon wrote:
#213 iserith Oct 03, 2014 21:17:23	Noon wrote:
#214 Gnarl Oct 04, 2014 8:27:57	Noon wrote:
#215 Gnarl Oct 04, 2014 9:53:42	Noon wrote:
#216 Orethalion Oct 04, 2014 10:26:41	Gnarl wrote:
#217 Gnarl Oct 04, 2014 12:06:08	Orethalion wrote:
#218 Pangur Oct 04, 2014 12:28:36	Gnarl wrote:
#219 iserith Oct 04, 2014 13:11:20	Pangur wrote:
#220 Orethalion Oct 04, 2014 13:51:01	iserith wrote:
#221 Jbickley00 Oct 04, 2014 14:03:19	Truth be told I don't care. If railroading serves the groups good time, I'll do it. Usually I only do this to say that players will figure out a way to cooperate. I hate the "but its my character" justification for acting like an asshat. A little tension between chars is fine, but when it turns to antagonism, that wrecks games. As far as plots go, I try to leave as much as reasonable to the players, but my world is dynamic and bad guys have motives and do things. There is certainly room for player agency and input, but its still my world and my table (and usually my house). The way I see it is that I run a game, and that should be fun no matter what amount of railroading I do. If its not fun for a player, my initial response is " you go your way and I mine." If all the players are hating the game then it obviously should be rethought. TBH however, I haven't had that happen ever.
#222 Pangur Oct 04, 2014 14:20:04	iserith wrote:
#223 Redbeard2 Oct 05, 2014 5:23:15	Noon wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Noon

Sep 24, 2014 2:35:35

I think there's maybe a kind of line in the sand, perhaps a circle drawn, folk have about when it comes to what is a railroad (what's inside the circle) and what isn't. I'm going to pitch the idea the circle drawn is really not big enough.

Let's start at a world. Okay, fair enough you might say 'I'm gunna play D&D with setting X', or maybe 'I'm gunna play D&D'. The thing is, even the latter kind of informs that it's going to be in some kind of setting, even if the GM made it up last weekened. And players will play in that setting - it's telling you that. So you don't have to put especial effort into telling anyone that hey, you will be playing inside setting X - because you kind of just said they (if they join the campaign) will be playing inside it.

So what about once we get to a module?

This is my charitable reading - that people are trying to do it the same way. As if they don't have to say anything - as much as were playing in setting X, hey, here's a module and...were playing in that module.

But nobody, apparently, has to say that, even.

Now props to anyone who actually says "Hey, I got this module and next Saturday we ARE playing it (or ya aint playin' at all!)!". That's a fair heads up that to play, you are not just playing in setting X, but somehow you have to playin within' the module - how do you play 'within' a module? I mean with a world it's clear enough how you play within that, but how do you play within a 'module'? I mean it's a metagame conceit for a start, the idea of a module (unless in your game world NPC's mention modules - does Deadpool live there?). But let's even ignore potential dysfunction of how you play within a module and say atleast that's a heads up - play within the module or don't play.

But let's talk about the folk who don't say that in advance.

The line between what is or isn't railroading seems to be drawn within that. That whatever is in the module, players HAVE to head toward - we just can't let go of the module, hell no! But by gum! Don't just tell players they have to stay on the cart heading towards what's in the module - how could that be legitimate!

You can see how the line gets drawn right between the players HAVE to go interact with the modules contents, vs actually forcing the damn players to interact with the modules contents. Which is exactly what you want to do if you only want the players to interact with those contents, but golly, you don't like seeing someone actually making it the case they will only interact with those contents.

Now I can hear you "But if they don't go to the module contents, nothing will happen!!!". But let's pretend like that's not a problem - like, it doesn't exist as a problem. Let's just pretend that for now.

And let us get back to being utterly focused on making play that is all about this module, but not wanting to force play to be all about this module. Like trying to draw a line through the middle, so wanting play to only ever be on tracks towards the module contents is like totally not railroading - but doing anything that makes play only ever be on tracks towards the module contents - by gosh, that's a disdainful railroading thing!

I like to imagine it as a kind of zit - that suddenly it'll pop "Oh crap, yeah, if I'm all focused on playing having to be about the module contents, then I'm railroading from the get go!", even if that's followed up with "But if they go the other way, what the hell do I do then?"

But I've never really guessed the internet responce to this sort of thing - it's always like hearding cats, the responce always seem to shoot off to some angle I never actually guessed. So it's kind of pointless me trying to do any more of the conversation by myself, it's time to see those unexpected angles! Or did the zit get popped already?

Shasarak

Sep 24, 2014 3:16:00

A module is like a Theme Park. And if you are going to a Theme Park then you had better play on the attractions because you do not want to be that guy waiting in the car while everyone else is having the fun.

Darth_Caffeineus

Sep 24, 2014 4:07:44

~~What you call Railroading, I call tight writing, good attention to mood and theme, and heavy narrative focus on the internal motivations and story arcs of the player characters.

What you call metagaming, I call fully recognizing, honoring and embracing the tropes, conventions and motifs of the heroic fantasy genre which are essentially the laws of physics of the fictional universe the game takes place in.

What someone might call open world/totally non-story driven DM style, I call a really dull, meandering and unengaging D&D game experience.

So I guess its a mater of opinion.

Shiroiken

Sep 24, 2014 5:13:58

Assuming it's not a bad adventure (I tried to stop using the word "module" since the optional features of the game are supposed to be called that too), you should be able to modify the adventure based on the actions of the PCs. If it's a sandbox adventure, great, because the players just do what they want until they get around the adventure content. If it's an event adventure, then the events occur without PC interference while they do other meaningless things. Unfortunatly, there are few bad adventures (wait, the PCs CAN'T kill this NPC the adventure puts into danger in Chapter 1, because he's the villain for chapers 5-7), and you need to figure out ways to either railroad (hopefully without the players being aware) or use "cut scenes" (which most players detest).

I've generally found that most players don't mind being railroaded, so long as they can't see the tracks. If I tell players that I'm running Temple of Elemental Evil, then they know what is expected of them and seldom go off the printed adventure deliberatly. Of course, a few d-bags want to go off the rails for the sole purpose of making the DM jump through hoops.

dmgorgon

Sep 24, 2014 6:38:16

When a module is run properly the players shouldn't be able to tell if they are playing within the bounds of the module or not.

iserith

Sep 24, 2014 7:01:20

Noon wrote:

SteveMND

Sep 24, 2014 7:05:40

Noon wrote:

Chiisai_Usagi

Sep 24, 2014 7:09:34

Darth_Caffeineus wrote:

Beldak_Serpenthelm

Sep 24, 2014 7:22:26

Darth_Caffeineus wrote:

#10

Orethalion

Sep 24, 2014 7:29:10

Noon wrote:

#11

DemoMonkey

Sep 24, 2014 7:36:58

Can someone tell me the actual question - in one sentence or less - that is being asked here?

#12

Chiisai_Usagi

Sep 24, 2014 7:39:36

Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:

#13

CCS

Sep 24, 2014 7:41:00

For me, presentation wise, running an adventure module is really no different than running something I've written up myself. Either way: 1) I have a "plan" of how things will (idealy) go. 2) I know the matériel well enough that I often just have a few note cards for key npc stats/names etc on my end of the table. Often times the players won't even know they're running through a module. 3) players will often do things contrary to "the plan". Sometimes they do so intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. I'm OK With that & often invest some thought into considering the "what if...." And if the players continue to truly move away from an adventure? Well then - I'm prepping something different for next week....... ~~~~~~~ And that, choice of action, is generally how it goes when I'm a player as well. The exception being when we decide to do something specific - say Tomb of Horrors. Ok, in that case, we won't be hairring off to WaterDeep 1/2 way through to spend a few sessions dealing with the thieves guild

#14

Kazadvorn

Sep 24, 2014 10:12:03

The modules you buy today... or at least the ones I've seen recently... are more 'railroads' than they were back in the day.

In the AD&D days, when you built a simple 'Dungeon' it wasn't just a strait line of rooms and corridors leading from the intro encounter to the boss encounter. There were different paths and levels... different sections with different inhabitants... you might have different themes either by area or level. From the entry way, you'd try to have at least two or three directions the players could go.. each leading to a different section with a different type of challenge. The players could start down one path, turn around and come back... try a different path or head back deeper into the first path. You might hit a set of stairs or a tunnel leading down... you had the option of going deeper in, or continuing to explore the first level.

#15

iserith

Sep 24, 2014 10:29:46

Linear plots and linear dungeons aren't in and of themselves railroading though. They're just examples of what I would call lazy and uninspired design. Railroading is about forcing someone to make a particular choice or subverting their choice to fit a particular agenda of the DM during the course of game play. If a player decides to engage with a linear storyline or explore a linear dungeon, that's not railroading. Similarly, it's not railroading if there is an expectation of the players that the DM will engage in illusionism techniques to enhance the game.

I don't particuarly like illusionism or linear design, but that doesn't make it "railroading."

(Reply to #14)

SteveMND

Kazadvorn wrote:

#17

sleypy

Sep 24, 2014 12:46:26

I don't really get what your problem is with the module. Everyone knows a modules contains adventure hooks, adventure locations and NPCs. It isn't railroading someone just because the DM didn't do a line by line review for the Players to sign off on.

Using your logic the DM first started to railroad players when they inviting them over to the house on a particular day.

#42

Orethalion

Sep 26, 2014 8:41:16

iserith wrote:

#43

bawylie

Sep 26, 2014 8:53:29

I guess my follow-up question is: at what point do the players' choices cross the line between unfettered and illusionism?

or at what point does the DM cross that line?

#44

Orethalion

Sep 26, 2014 8:59:38

bawylie wrote:

#45

iserith

Sep 26, 2014 9:03:59

bawylie wrote:

#46

Ahglock

Sep 26, 2014 9:22:11

Trying to turn almost every story the DM puts forth as railroading is about the same as turning all player agency into problem player douchetastic actions where they justify why they stole from the party or caused other disruptive actions because they were role playing their character.

#47

Gnarl

Sep 26, 2014 9:55:06

What's wrong with railroading anyways?

As soon as there's an objective in the adventure, you're railroading the players. If there are intermediate steps to reach your objective, you're railroading your players. And if you don't think about the logical intermediate paths your players might take, you end up with a rubbish inconsistent adventure. Using a little bit of railroading is what ensure the consistency of your adventure.

And seriously, as long as your players are having fun, aren't you doing the right thing as a DM?

(Reply to #47)

Ahglock

Gnarl wrote:

#49

iserith

Sep 26, 2014 10:29:13

Gnarl wrote:

#50

Gnarl

Sep 26, 2014 10:33:07

Ahglock wrote:

#51

iserith

Sep 26, 2014 10:42:48

Gnarl wrote:

#52

Orethalion

Sep 26, 2014 10:47:39

Gnarl wrote:

#53

Orethalion

Sep 26, 2014 10:50:44

iserith wrote:

#54

sleypy

Sep 26, 2014 11:06:41

bawylie wrote:

#82

Gnarl

Sep 30, 2014 6:34:15

Noon wrote:

#83

Gnarl

Sep 30, 2014 6:38:36

Emerikol. wrote:

#84

Orethalion

Sep 30, 2014 7:05:07

Noon wrote:

#85

Gnarl

Sep 30, 2014 7:42:05

Orethalion wrote:

#86

Pangur

Sep 30, 2014 8:51:19

Gnarl wrote:

#87

Orethalion

Sep 30, 2014 10:45:00

Gnarl wrote:

#88

Noon

Sep 30, 2014 19:09:31

Shiroiken wrote:

#89

Noon

Sep 30, 2014 19:35:39

Gnarl wrote:

#90

Gnarl

Sep 30, 2014 22:36:48

Noon wrote:

#91

Pangur

Oct 01, 2014 2:44:35

Noon wrote:

#92

Orethalion

Oct 01, 2014 3:10:40

Pangur wrote:

#93

Noon

Oct 01, 2014 22:00:36

Gnarl - then it's 'they must get to C'. It's a railroad*. Your ending a session when they drift too far so as to make a new A,B,C is just enforcing that they'll be back on their way to some sort of C next time.

Why you need them to be going to C so badly, I don't know? Is it some kind of payoff for you, as GM? Could you invent a payoff for yourself that doesn't require PC's go to any particular letter? What do you get out of GM'ing - you might say "I just like to see what the players do and/or see them happy", but with such a fixation on C, I don't buy that really. Do you just need to conclude a definite story? I mean I get the feeling of that need, if not the implementation.

Pangur,

"This is the situation, what do you do?"

#94

Gnarl

Oct 01, 2014 22:12:03

Noon wrote:

#95

Pangur

Oct 02, 2014 0:01:36

Noon wrote:

#96

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 3:06:52

Gnarl wrote:

#97

Uchawi

Oct 02, 2014 3:19:01

The railroad, the highway, or intersecting series of roads is what the DM has prepared. How often you deviate from it places a burden and resposibility on both sides of the table. If a player constantly deviates to unknown roads it can have a negative impact, just like a DM that is very controlling. So there has to be some type of understanding at the table.

#98

Orethalion

Oct 02, 2014 3:25:04

Noon wrote:

#99

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 3:33:27

Pangur wrote:

#100

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 3:35:24

Uchawi wrote:

(Reply to #81)

arnwolf666

Emerikol. wrote:

#102

Pangur

Oct 02, 2014 5:00:09

Noon wrote:

#103

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 5:51:29

It's very simple: An adventure set up with scene A leading to scene B to scene C is a linear plot. It is not a "railroad" nor is the DM inherently "railroading" by preparing and running a linear plot. Using a linear plot is just a technique, neither good nor bad.

Railroading is not a specific technique - it is an outcome. It is what you have when a technique is used to subvert player choice in a way that violates the social contract. That is bad. Players don't agree to be "railroaded." Rather, they agree to follow a linear plot or to allow the DM to use the illusion of choice to keep them on his prepared materials. If they agree, then there can be no railroading. If they do not agree and somehow get pushed down that linear plot anyway, then they are being railroaded (and that's bad).

#104

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 6:01:42

Orethalion wrote:

#105

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 6:24:56

Pangur wrote:

#106

Orethalion

Oct 02, 2014 7:08:35

Noon wrote:

#107

Pangur

Oct 02, 2014 7:34:20

Noon wrote:

(Reply to #103)

Finieous

iserith wrote:

#109

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 7:50:31

Finieous wrote:

#110

Finieous

Oct 02, 2014 8:02:31

iserith wrote:

#111

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 8:12:54

Finieous wrote:

#112

Finieous

Oct 02, 2014 8:26:22

iserith wrote:

#113

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 8:49:23

Finieous wrote:

(Reply to #113)

Finieous

We seem to have reached the part of the discussion where we simply repeat ourselves, so I'll bow out. Thanks.

#115

Orethalion

Oct 02, 2014 9:04:23

iserith wrote:

(Reply to #115)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:

#117

Bloodscythe

Oct 02, 2014 9:45:54

I'm going to have to disagree with the very wide net cast by this lax use of the term railroading.

If players agree to play a module, and in the course of playing the module, they deviate to such a degree that they would leave the confines of the module, using narrative or leading questions to redirect the players back into the module is not railroading. The players agreed to confirm to the module. They may be deviating simply because they don't know the specifics of the module, which is expected. Why should the players know the specifics about an adventure they're not DMing?

Railroading is explicit subversion of choice. A player doesn't want to pick up a cursed sword because he's cautious... the DM hoped he'd fall for the trap but didn't so the DM has the character roll a dex check, and on a failure, stumbles into the sword anyway. That's railroading.

A player doesn't want his character to pick up a cursed sword because he's cautious and instead keeps it on himself in case it's worth keeping. The DM uses a monster to disarm the character, hoping the character will draw the cursed sword. It is now the player's choice on how his character reacts to being disarmed and whether the character uses the cursed sword. That's not railroading.

Using a real world example, If I tell several friends that I will be DMing a game of D&D at my place at 6 pm, and they say they will be there ready to play. The group of friends don't show up at 6 so I call one of them... oh, they all went to where I used to live. It is not removing their choice by correcting them and setting them on the path that gets them to the agreed upon destination. They just weren't 100% certain of the details and needed some help to arrive at the correct destination. It was a destination that the players agreed to work toward. How they get there is indeed their choice.. they can take any roads or routes available to them to arrive at my place, I do not tell them which roads they can or can't take or how fast they must or must not drive, or if they can only arrive at my place by taking left turns... but I do stipulate that my place is the goal and they should actively take steps to attain the goal that they agreed upon.

Providing leading questions and guidance in a module is not railroading. If such a vague notion were true, then all things are railroading that don't provide infinite choices.

DM asks if the players want to play Module X. The following is true of Module X: it details the locations A, B, and C. The players agree to play Module X.

DM: Your character can go to A, B, or C.

Player: my character goes to D.

DM: Though D exists in the game world, it wasn't one of the choices in the module. Please choose A, B, or C.

Player: Stop railroading me, man.. I'm going to D.

This isn't an example of railroading. The players agreed to play the module. The DM not allowing the players to choose option D is not railroading because the option isn't available. The players have choice, admittedly constrained by the module, but those choices aren't predetermined by the DM. The players still make them. They just don't have access to infinite choices.

#118

Orethalion

Oct 02, 2014 9:54:55

Bloodscythe wrote:

#119

Gnarl

Oct 02, 2014 10:02:18

Noon wrote:

#120

bawylie

Oct 02, 2014 10:25:54

It sounds to me as though Noon will declare Railroading (or elements of railroading) any game that's not a complete free-form sandbox hex crawl.

I think I see his point. I remain unconvinced that any railroading at all is unequivocally bad.

(Reply to #120)

Bloodscythe

bawylie wrote:

(Reply to #119)

Bloodscythe

Gnarl wrote:

#123

Pangur

Oct 02, 2014 11:13:43

bawylie wrote:

(Reply to #123)

bawylie

Pangur wrote:

#125

Brock_Landers

Oct 02, 2014 12:14:28

I never prep more than one session in advance (except for an overall theme/goal, blah-blah), whatever the players choose to do, affects the next session, they may choose to go to straight to Pandemonium to try to find the Unseelie Court, or go to Tir Na Og to deal with the civil war.

Or say screw the whole thing, let's kick it in Sigil and get trashed, their choice.

#126

ankiyavon

Oct 02, 2014 13:12:06

bawylie wrote:

#127

Brock_Landers

Oct 02, 2014 13:14:47

ankiyavon wrote:

(Reply to #126)

bawylie

@ankiyavon

Is that association due to an absence of consent? Does consent play a role in establish the difference between linear design and railroad behavior? Or a partial role? Maybe they're distinct on their own but overlap w/o consent....

#129

ankiyavon

Oct 02, 2014 13:36:15

bawylie wrote:

#130

Brock_Landers

Oct 02, 2014 13:39:32

bawylie wrote:

#131

Pangur

Oct 02, 2014 13:53:17

Brock_Landers wrote:

#132

DemoMonkey

Oct 02, 2014 14:17:31

A linear adventure is not railroading, as long as the players have the option to say "Screw it. We don't CARE if the armies of Orcus will overrun the land if we don't rescue the guy who has the map that leads to the secret cave that holds the artifact arrow that lets us kill the guardian of the Mirror of Transcendence that will stop him. We have a flying boat and we want to be pirates!"

If you can turn away from the whole adventure without it reappearing in front of you like Gothos, you aren't being railroaded.

If you choose to take part in the adventure however, even if it has a linear plotline, you aren't being railroaded. You have chosen to be there.

(Reply to #126)

Bloodscythe

ankiyavon wrote:

#134

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 15:11:29

Orethalion wrote:

#135

DemoMonkey

Oct 02, 2014 15:19:18

Noon

As you yourself said in the OP:

"Now I can hear you "But if they don't go to the module contents, nothing will happen!!!". But let's pretend like that's not a problem - like, it doesn't exist as a problem. Let's just pretend that for now."

So by your own parameters, you really can't fault anyone in this thread for not considering that a problem.

#136

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 15:52:09

Pangur wrote:

#137

ankiyavon

Oct 02, 2014 15:53:29

Bloodscythe wrote:

#138

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 16:15:17

iserith wrote:

#139

bawylie

Oct 02, 2014 16:19:56

"'Railroading' is not just 'a social contract breach', otherwise ALL social contract breaches are railroads. That makes no sense!"

I don't think that holds true. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

Looking specifically at linear design, is a maze a railroad? Or is railroading a behavior?

#140

Shasarak

Oct 02, 2014 16:28:09

Noon wrote:

#141

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 16:22:12

Bloodscythe wrote:

#142

Beldak_Serpenthelm

Oct 02, 2014 16:30:27

Noon wrote:

#143

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 16:40:11

Gnarl wrote:

#144

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 16:46:35

Noon wrote:

#145

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 16:52:30

You can't railroad someone away from a nonexistent option, but if you define railroading as simply "denying options", then anything that doesn't explicitly allow for infinite options is by his definition, railroading. D&D can't even implicitly provide infinite options. Some things just aren't possible. And even when something is within the realm of possibility, you can't normalize everything to a 1 in 20 chance.

#146

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 16:59:10

Brock_Landers wrote:

#147

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 16:58:26

Shasarak wrote:

#148

Shasarak

Oct 02, 2014 17:03:52

Noon wrote:

#149

Gnarl

Oct 02, 2014 17:04:59

@Noon: You're pushing it to extremes. You're basically saying that whenever the DM isn't passive, he's railroading. It's absurd. A DM is not a puppet that rolls the dice for the bad guys whenever you ask him to.

Players: "We want to start a thieves' guild."

DM: "No problem. But you know that the other thieves' guilds are not going to let you start one without a fight."

By your definition, that DM is railroading. The DM just defined an objective for you. But what did the DM actually do? He just used your idea of starting a thieves' guild as an adventure hook. And he was right to do it because that's his job.

And the worst is, you admitted that's exactly what you want a DM to do. You mentioned how boring it is when the DM just lets you watch trees. If a DM needs to be passive, then you're the one to blame when you're watching trees. You should have forced your little puppet (the DM) to make something happen. If you don't want objectives, you can't expect the DM to make your life miserable. It would look too much like some kind of adventure with an actual plot.

You seriously need to make up your mind. What's worse? Watching trees or having the DM throw a few challenges at you as you wander about the world? Be careful with you answer. As soon as the DM throws a challenge at you, he gave you an objective: overcome the challenge. And it's not the good kind of objective that your character decided. It's the evil railroading one.

#150

Finieous

Oct 02, 2014 17:08:01

iserith wrote:

#151

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 17:17:01

Finieous wrote:

#152

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 17:23:29

iserith wrote:

#153

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 17:29:42

Shasarak wrote:

#154

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 17:32:38

Railroading by definition is not acceptable. It describes a problematic behavior, a violation of the social contract. You don't "agree to be railroaded." That makes no sense whatsoever. You can, however, agree to follow a linear plot, stay confined within a particular defined scenario, an adventure path or the like. It is that agreement which means you are not being railroaded. I know colloquially a lot of people like to use "railroad" or "rail" to describe linear plots or the like, but that is not correct even if we get the person's point.

If I talk to my group and we agree to play the Age of Worms adventure path, then that means they agree to start in the town of Diamond Lake and eventually face off against Kyuss the Wormgod when they are sufficiently powerful and have gotten to that point in the plot. Those constraints are not railroading, nor is it railroading for me to remind them of their agreement should they, for some reason, decide to stop pursuing that plot to become pirates. Now, when I tell them we have a sandbox campaign and they can do whatever they want, only to be constantly embroiled in the plots of the Ebon Triad and eventually face Kyuss despite any of the other choices to the contrary, then I am railroading. I have violated the social contract of that game.

#155

Finieous

Oct 02, 2014 17:38:17

iserith wrote:

#156

Gnarl

Oct 02, 2014 17:40:48

iserith wrote:

#157

ORC_Cricket

Oct 02, 2014 17:42:12

We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.

Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.

#158

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 17:45:46

Finieous wrote:

#159

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 17:49:15

Gnarl wrote:

(Reply to #158)

Finieous

iserith wrote:

#161

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 17:56:35

Finieous wrote:

(Reply to #161)

Finieous

iserith wrote:

#163

Shasarak

Oct 02, 2014 18:07:42

Noon wrote:

#164

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 18:09:59

Finieous wrote:

#165

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 18:18:04

Gnarl wrote:

#166

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 18:27:04

iserith wrote:

#167

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 18:30:28

Noon wrote:

#168

Noon

Oct 02, 2014 18:52:55

iserith wrote:

#169

iserith

Oct 02, 2014 18:56:21

I don't leave Greenrest during the sacking of the town because I agreed to play the module. There's no need to have a word to explain me keeping my agreement. Nobody forced me into deciding who to fight while in Greenrest or when to rest or which villagers to save (I saved a ton of them) or whether to duel Cyanwrath or how to go about fighting a way over-level dragon. But one thing is for certain: I was going to engage with the material that was being presented instead of going off to be a pirate. That is because I agreed to play HotDQ.

I made choices and kicked ass and was not in any way railroaded.

#170

grendel111111

Oct 02, 2014 20:11:15

So Noon as far as I can see you are saying every game of D and D must be, by default, a universe sized sand box with no DM input. Anything less is railroading.

So we have 2 players and a DM at the table going to play HotDQ. and they head to Greenret. Ahead they see a gragon attacking the town:

Player 1: This is bull you're rail roading us. we decide to head in the other direction to safety.

DM: OK you head off down the road and as you travel you see a man by the side of the road next to a cart with a broken wheel.

Player 2: What the hell. another railroad. I kick the man to death and walk over his bloody corpse. We carry on down the road.

DM: As you keep going a man comes running out of the forest asking for help.

Player 1: stop right there. We're not falling for another of your railroads, we turn left and head into the forest.

DM: Ahead of you you hear russling in the bushes....

Player 2: screw this we burn the forest to the ground, nice try, what happens next.

DM: I don't know why don't you tell me what you would like to do, it's all up to you......

Player 1: I want to raid a goblin encampment.

Player 2: That sounds fun, lets go.

DM: OK let me just sketch up a quick map (Player 2 mumbles about the DM's lack of planning).

DM: So having burnt the forest to the ground you head off over a convienient mountain ridge and see on the crest of the next hill a goblin encampment.

Player 1: Now we're talking, we approach carefully.

DM: you see an encampment of about 8 tents surrounded by a high wall made from wooden stakes. There are 2 goblins guarding the main gate each holding a short bow. A foul stench drifts from the encampment in your direction.

Player 1: Ok not cool. What the hell, you are just trying to make us fight those guards, that is uncool railroading.

Player 2: Yes, and the walls are only there to stop us walking into the encampment from any direction. This is railroading at it's worst.

DM: OK. You clearly do not need a DM and can just make up what you want on your own. I'll see you later.

Player 1: great now we are free to do anything we want with out being railroaded.

Player 2: OK so I am running into the encampment.

Player 1: No stop railroading the game, your just as bad as the DM doing things that aren't exactly what I want. We leave the encampment and find a tent with 2 kobolds in it to kill.

Player 2: Who is railroading now.

#171

Gnarl

Oct 02, 2014 21:37:09

Noon wrote:

#172

Finieous

Oct 02, 2014 22:21:33

Gnarl wrote:

#173

Orethalion

Oct 02, 2014 22:47:04

Noon wrote:

#174

Pangur

Oct 03, 2014 0:01:09

Finieous wrote:

#175

Pangur

Oct 03, 2014 2:34:39

Noon wrote:

(Reply to #174)

Finieous

Pangur wrote:

#177

Gnarl

Oct 03, 2014 6:47:04

Finieous wrote:

#178

Gnarl

Oct 03, 2014 6:58:06

Finieous wrote:

#179

Gnarl

Oct 03, 2014 7:17:09

Pangur wrote:

(Reply to #178)

Finieous

Gnarl wrote:

#181

Pangur

Oct 03, 2014 7:49:40

Gnarl wrote:

#182

Brock_Landers

Oct 03, 2014 9:06:16

Gnarl wrote:

#183

Orethalion

Oct 03, 2014 9:27:11

Brock_Landers wrote:

#184

Brock_Landers

Oct 03, 2014 9:31:38

Orethalion wrote:

(Reply to #137)

Bloodscythe

ankiyavon wrote:

(Reply to #183)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:

#187

Orethalion

Oct 03, 2014 9:47:04

Bloodscythe wrote:

#188

Brock_Landers

Oct 03, 2014 9:52:31

Orethalion wrote:

#189

Orethalion

Oct 03, 2014 9:53:39

Brock_Landers wrote:

#190

Brock_Landers

Oct 03, 2014 9:58:28

Orethalion wrote:

#191

DemoMonkey

Oct 03, 2014 10:01:08

I no longer know what this argument is actually about.

#192

Orethalion

Oct 03, 2014 10:13:48

Brock_Landers wrote:

#193

Orethalion

Oct 03, 2014 10:14:58

DemoMonkey wrote:

#194

Bloodscythe

Oct 03, 2014 10:46:40

So to get us back on track (pardon the pun)... We are discussing what constitutes "railroading", and whether it is unilaterally detrimental.

#195

DemoMonkey

Oct 03, 2014 11:03:26

"So to get us back on track (pardon the pun)... We are discussing what constitutes "railroading", and whether it is unilaterally detrimental."

See, that's clear. Thank you Bloodscythe!

It's railroading if the players only choice - not best, or most pleasant, or most profitable, but ONLY - choice is to follow the DMs pre-determined plotline, or not play at all.

By that definition, it is unilaterally detrimental.

#196

sleypy

Oct 03, 2014 11:48:57

Bloodscythe wrote:

#202

Noon

Oct 03, 2014 18:08:02

grendel111111 wrote:

#203

Noon

Oct 03, 2014 17:48:09

I have no idea why people think it's some kind of defence to say they didn't understand anything, when it includes 'I wouldn't say you were railroaded'.

Yes, Isereth, your fingers are in your ears lalala you can't hear me. I get it.

#204

Noon

Oct 03, 2014 18:10:25

Orethalion wrote:

#205

iserith

Oct 03, 2014 18:16:15

Noon wrote:

(Reply to #202)

grendel111111

Noon wrote:

#207

Noon

Oct 03, 2014 18:21:00

Bloodscythe wrote:

#208

Noon

Oct 03, 2014 18:39:14

grendel111111 wrote:

#209

Noon

Oct 03, 2014 18:50:03

iserith wrote:

(Reply to #208)

grendel111111

Noon wrote:

#211

grendel111111

Oct 03, 2014 19:29:19

So Noon is your issue that a DM you play with doesn't do a session 0 to make sure that everyone is on board with how the game will run. I think most people you are argueing with do exactly that.

#212

Orethalion

Oct 03, 2014 19:48:50

Noon wrote:

#213

iserith

Oct 03, 2014 21:17:23

Noon wrote:

#214

Gnarl

Oct 04, 2014 8:27:57

Noon wrote:

#215

Gnarl

Oct 04, 2014 9:53:42

Noon wrote:

#216

Orethalion

Oct 04, 2014 10:26:41

Gnarl wrote:

#217

Gnarl

Oct 04, 2014 12:06:08

Orethalion wrote:

#218

Pangur

Oct 04, 2014 12:28:36

Gnarl wrote:

#219

iserith

Oct 04, 2014 13:11:20

Pangur wrote:

#220

Orethalion

Oct 04, 2014 13:51:01

iserith wrote:

#221

Jbickley00

Oct 04, 2014 14:03:19

Truth be told I don't care. If railroading serves the groups good time, I'll do it. Usually I only do this to say that players will figure out a way to cooperate. I hate the "but its my character" justification for acting like an asshat. A little tension between chars is fine, but when it turns to antagonism, that wrecks games. As far as plots go, I try to leave as much as reasonable to the players, but my world is dynamic and bad guys have motives and do things. There is certainly room for player agency and input, but its still my world and my table (and usually my house). The way I see it is that I run a game, and that should be fun no matter what amount of railroading I do. If its not fun for a player, my initial response is " you go your way and I mine." If all the players are hating the game then it obviously should be rethought. TBH however, I haven't had that happen ever.

#222

Pangur

Oct 04, 2014 14:20:04

iserith wrote:

#223

Redbeard2

Oct 05, 2014 5:23:15

Noon wrote: