Whats Railroading ?
Moderator: Moderators
Whats Railroading ?
Ive seen the word "railroading" come up in different discussions around here with some meanings that look slightly different from what Im used to see. Railroading as I understand it, is when the GM pre-creates/writes/scripts a plot and steer the players through it. But the way I see it used by some people here is more related to the (lack of) freedom of a player within a given scene. Or something like that.
While I agree that this "micro-scope" railroading is certainly valid (lack of freedom in a given scene), I think the way that scene impacts the plot as a whole is the real differential for me of what consitutues a railroad. In other words, you could clear a dungeon room full of monsters in a dozen manners - through magic, force, subterfuge or even diplomacy - but if that room has only one exit that leads to another pre-scripted room with another pre-scripted exit, then no matter how you clear those rooms, you are in a railroad pre-planned by the GM.
Now, on the other hand, if you can ignore the rooms entirely, or invent an exit by yourselves ("lets blow this wall off!") then youre really free, and out from the railroad.
Thoughts ?
While I agree that this "micro-scope" railroading is certainly valid (lack of freedom in a given scene), I think the way that scene impacts the plot as a whole is the real differential for me of what consitutues a railroad. In other words, you could clear a dungeon room full of monsters in a dozen manners - through magic, force, subterfuge or even diplomacy - but if that room has only one exit that leads to another pre-scripted room with another pre-scripted exit, then no matter how you clear those rooms, you are in a railroad pre-planned by the GM.
Now, on the other hand, if you can ignore the rooms entirely, or invent an exit by yourselves ("lets blow this wall off!") then youre really free, and out from the railroad.
Thoughts ?
- nockermensch
- Duke
- Posts: 1898
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
- Location: Rio: the Janeiro
Any year now you'll stop worrying about trivial and uninteresting definitions of words.
Claiming that a dungeon is "railroading" because the walls physically constrain you to predetermined paths is possibly the most inane thing I ever read.
Claiming that a dungeon is "railroading" because the walls physically constrain you to predetermined paths is possibly the most inane thing I ever read.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
Railroading, like sex or Leon Trotsky's pickaxe, is all in the mind. My group is fairly allergic to it, but I've played with some who are either amateur dramatics types or hardcore die-rolling combat munchkins and who prefer to be led by the nose from set piece to set piece.
Personally I find that my attitude to railroading depends on the genre of the game. If I'm playing something investigative like Call of Cthulhu or Orpheus, then railroading is good. If I'm playing Unknown Armies or Ars Magica, then that railroad can get the fuck out of my way because I want to roleplay, not follow a trail of breadcrumbs. When I'm GMing, I enjoy both styles of play depending on the game and the group, so long as I know which one I'm being expected to do.
It's worth noticing that like terrorism or tyranny, nobody is ever going to call railroading that if they support it. If players feel that their choices are meaningless because they'll end up at the same destination, then they'll whine about railroading. On the other hand, if they're simply sitting around with nothing to do, expecting you to make plot happen, then they're unlikely to ask you to railroad them even if that's what they want.
Personally I find that my attitude to railroading depends on the genre of the game. If I'm playing something investigative like Call of Cthulhu or Orpheus, then railroading is good. If I'm playing Unknown Armies or Ars Magica, then that railroad can get the fuck out of my way because I want to roleplay, not follow a trail of breadcrumbs. When I'm GMing, I enjoy both styles of play depending on the game and the group, so long as I know which one I'm being expected to do.
It's worth noticing that like terrorism or tyranny, nobody is ever going to call railroading that if they support it. If players feel that their choices are meaningless because they'll end up at the same destination, then they'll whine about railroading. On the other hand, if they're simply sitting around with nothing to do, expecting you to make plot happen, then they're unlikely to ask you to railroad them even if that's what they want.
OH FUCK MISTBORN
MY EYES
GOT DAMMIT I'M ALREADY NEARSIGHTED ARE YOU TRY TO JUST BLIND ME
MY EYES
GOT DAMMIT I'M ALREADY NEARSIGHTED ARE YOU TRY TO JUST BLIND ME
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
- Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
Railroading is the removal of any consequence of player input. No matter what they choose to do, the events in the game happen in a strictly linear fashion and any attempts to diverge from the exact adventure the MC had in mind fail.
Sort of like how now matter what I write in this post, silva will continue to rant about Bear World games and any attempt to interact with him like a rational being fail.
Sort of like how now matter what I write in this post, silva will continue to rant about Bear World games and any attempt to interact with him like a rational being fail.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Yeah, I tend to agree with that. Railroading can be a good thing depending on the genre ( horror, investigations, etc ) and players (non-proactive ).Laertes wrote:Railroading, like sex or Leon Trotsky's pickaxe, is all in the mind. My group is fairly allergic to it, but I've played with some who are either amateur dramatics types or hardcore die-rolling combat munchkins and who prefer to be led by the nose from set piece to set piece.
Personally I find that my attitude to railroading depends on the genre of the game. If I'm playing something investigative like Call of Cthulhu or Orpheus, then railroading is good. If I'm playing Unknown Armies or Ars Magica, then that railroad can get the fuck out of my way because I want to roleplay, not follow a trail of breadcrumbs. When I'm GMing, I enjoy both styles of play depending on the game and the group, so long as I know which one I'm being expected to do.
It's worth noticing that like terrorism or tyranny, nobody is ever going to call railroading that if they support it. If players feel that their choices are meaningless because they'll end up at the same destination, then they'll whine about railroading. On the other hand, if they're simply sitting around with nothing to do, expecting you to make plot happen, then they're unlikely to ask you to railroad them even if that's what they want.
But what about my previous example ? Is it a railroad if you give player total choice & consequence inside a given scene or room, but ignore it outside of it, when it comes to the plot flow ?Josh_Kablack wrote:Railroading is the removal of any consequence of player input. No matter what they choose to do, the events in the game happen in a strictly linear fashion and any attempts to diverge from the exact adventure the MC had in mind fail.
Ie: Shadowrun is one of the most railroadish games in existence, because the very books advocate for the GM to come up with a "run of the week" for the players to embark, which they should never (or rarely) refuse. At the same time, most runs have a sandbox element to them in the way the group can approach it - do we go in guns blazing or ninja mode ? do we enter by the floor or by the heliport ? do we bring more mojo or more muscle ? what order we approach the objectives ? do we exfiltrate by the front or backdoor ? etc.
Could we say Shadowrun is railroadish on the macro-level ( aka plot-wise) and sandboxish on the micro-level (aka operation-wise) ? Does it make sense ?
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
Funny to bring up Shadowrun, when this was discussed awhile ago (read both the quote and response). Otherwise, don't really care for trying to split the term up into "sub-terms" like Ken Ham wanted to do with Observational/Historical Science BS.silva wrote: Could we say Shadowrun is railroadish on the macro-level ( aka plot-wise) and sandboxish on the micro-level (aka operation-wise) ? Does it make sense ?
To the bolded first, ideally yes, though its implied it's the manner of the Den to sometimes flip over asking precise details of certain words, even when they've been used casually in long discussions to little/none having a misunderstanding in its definition. So while he's not improper for doing so, he probably would benefit to not make so many threads off of small things if they can be handled in a pre-existing thread.nockermensch wrote:Any year now you'll stop worrying about trivial and uninteresting definitions of words.
Claiming that a dungeon is "railroading" because the walls physically constrain you to predetermined paths is possibly the most inane thing I ever read.
I thought I read something in the 3.5 DMG that mentioned this, but it seems in support of it not being a railroad. So to Silva, I suggest you check out 3.5 DMG pg's 45 for "Bad Structure", and pg 58 "Why Dungeons" Sidebar. I think it does a decent job explaining to you the notion of Railroading.
What I find wrong w/ 4th edition: "I want to stab dragons the size of a small keep with skin like supple adamantine and command over time and space to death with my longsword in head to head combat, but I want to be totally within realistic capabilities of a real human being!" --Caedrus mocking 4rries
"the thing about being Mister Cavern [DM], you don't blame players for how they play. That's like blaming the weather. Weather just is. You adapt to it. -Ancient History
"the thing about being Mister Cavern [DM], you don't blame players for how they play. That's like blaming the weather. Weather just is. You adapt to it. -Ancient History
- Sir Neil
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Land of the Free, Home of the Brave
Yes, though I wouldn't use Shadowrun as an example of "most railroadish." A bad G.M. can pull a "But Thou Must" with any system. The question is what you do when the party won't bite on the adventure hooks you place. You could change the in game bait or handle it out of game by saying, "C'mon guys, this is the only adventure I have ready."silva wrote: Is it a railroad if you give player total choice & consequence inside a given scene or room, but ignore it outside of it, when it comes to the plot flow ?
Railroading is something to avoid with active players, but sometimes useful with passive ones.
- angelfromanotherpin
- Overlord
- Posts: 9745
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Apocalypse World is a system where the DM is told not to plan things in advance and the examples of play include if you succeed very well on a spot check being suddenly surrounded by unbeatable enemies. As in the DM randomly spawned enemies because he felt like it. Other gameplay examples include failing on a successful roll and spawning enemies behind a locked door because the player put the idea of enemies being there in the DM's head. Note that since it's a rules light system, the examples are the only things showing how the game is supposed to be played.
As in, if you fail at a roll, you may be suddenly attacked by bears, and if you succeed you may be attacked by bears. Replace 'bears' with whatever the DM thinks of first.
People say that in real games this doesn't happen, but in the DM's advice it tells you that there is only one way to properly DM Apocalypse World and literally spells out how you should DM- you should take every opportunity to screw over the PCs and make them have terrible choices as often as possible.
Basically, the DM makes up shit as he goes, and is encouraged to make everything go badly for you and retcon enemies to screw you over even more.
As in, if you fail at a roll, you may be suddenly attacked by bears, and if you succeed you may be attacked by bears. Replace 'bears' with whatever the DM thinks of first.
People say that in real games this doesn't happen, but in the DM's advice it tells you that there is only one way to properly DM Apocalypse World and literally spells out how you should DM- you should take every opportunity to screw over the PCs and make them have terrible choices as often as possible.
Basically, the DM makes up shit as he goes, and is encouraged to make everything go badly for you and retcon enemies to screw you over even more.
Last edited by Parthenon on Tue May 27, 2014 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Goddamnit Silva, it's like you had to prove me wrong when I said I wouldn't necessarily call you a troll.
A dungeon is not a railroad unless the DM says "Ok, you all wake up in this dungeon and must go left and you can't affect the walls in anyway and there's no door you can exit out of and in fact you can't retrace your steps at all!!!! SHIT IN YOUR HAND! SHITINYOURHAND!"
Railroading is "you must do exactly as I say/planned, and if you try to stray from the preordained path, I will just pull you back onto it." Saying "so this guy tells you about a dungeon full of treasure, want to check it out? y/n?" isn't a railroad.
A dungeon is not a railroad unless the DM says "Ok, you all wake up in this dungeon and must go left and you can't affect the walls in anyway and there's no door you can exit out of and in fact you can't retrace your steps at all!!!! SHIT IN YOUR HAND! SHITINYOURHAND!"
Railroading is "you must do exactly as I say/planned, and if you try to stray from the preordained path, I will just pull you back onto it." Saying "so this guy tells you about a dungeon full of treasure, want to check it out? y/n?" isn't a railroad.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
silva-threads are railroading.
virgil wrote:Lovecraft didn't later add a love triangle between Dagon, Chtulhu, & the Colour-Out-of-Space; only to have it broken up through cyber-bullying by the King in Yellow.
FrankTrollman wrote:If your enemy is fucking Gravity, are you helping or hindering it by putting things on high shelves? I don't fucking know! That's not even a thing. Your enemy can't be Gravity, because that's stupid.
I know laid my thoughts bear on this subject before but it bears repeating, I wish Silva would just flame out and stop posting already. It's clear that he is unwilling to put in even the bear minimum of effort to have a real discussion with us and despite having his idiocy laid bear for all to see he bears no trace of shame. It's really unbearable to read.deanruel87 wrote:Talking to him like he's a person is him proving you wrong.
Incorrect! Trotsky was done in with an icepick, as Ives clearly teaches us.Korgan0 wrote:I'm pretty sure Trotsky's pickaxe was only half in his mind, since, you know, pickaxes have two blades emanating from the haft.
decent version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_GczOall0o
Last edited by fectin on Wed May 28, 2014 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.
- deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3891
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
I had planned not to participate in this thread - after all, it is a Silva thread. It is somewhat ironic that conversations with him are like a railroad - leading directly to 'what I like about *world' without regard to input from other people. But since others have stepped in it, I guess I'll join them - especially since Silva seems to have dropped 'evocative' from every post finally...
Prak just mentioned a 'hook'. There can be a lot of hooks, and as a result, if the players can really choose between multiple different options, it's not really a railroad.
The thing is, it's easy to bait a hook in such a way that it IS actually a railroad. If you have a choice between developing yourself personally or saving the world from immediate destruction, that's probably not really a choice at all.
Meaningful choice is the antithesis of a railroad plot.
In general, to avoid a railroad, the GM must have several options available, any of which can be pursued (up to and including abandoning the one they're currently following). As a matter of best practice, even if there is a specific objective, there should be multiple ways of obtaining it and/or destinations can be visited in any order.
Like most elements of the game, it's really more of a continuum than an objective term. On the most extreme end, the players cannot even move in the wrong direction (ie impassable geography in every direction except the one the players are intended to take). But it's possible to give players freedom of physical movement and still maintain a railroad.
And since this is a Silva thread, it is worth mentioning that it is possible to 'prep plot' without it being a railroad. Knowing what the evil antagonist will do without interruption is fine, even if there is no railroad - because if the players have the choice of not interacting with the evil antagonist if they choose not to, it is important that 'things happen'. As long as those things aren't overwhelming to the point that there really wasn't a choice to begin with, I don't think it would qualify as a railroad.
Prak just mentioned a 'hook'. There can be a lot of hooks, and as a result, if the players can really choose between multiple different options, it's not really a railroad.
The thing is, it's easy to bait a hook in such a way that it IS actually a railroad. If you have a choice between developing yourself personally or saving the world from immediate destruction, that's probably not really a choice at all.
Meaningful choice is the antithesis of a railroad plot.
In general, to avoid a railroad, the GM must have several options available, any of which can be pursued (up to and including abandoning the one they're currently following). As a matter of best practice, even if there is a specific objective, there should be multiple ways of obtaining it and/or destinations can be visited in any order.
Like most elements of the game, it's really more of a continuum than an objective term. On the most extreme end, the players cannot even move in the wrong direction (ie impassable geography in every direction except the one the players are intended to take). But it's possible to give players freedom of physical movement and still maintain a railroad.
And since this is a Silva thread, it is worth mentioning that it is possible to 'prep plot' without it being a railroad. Knowing what the evil antagonist will do without interruption is fine, even if there is no railroad - because if the players have the choice of not interacting with the evil antagonist if they choose not to, it is important that 'things happen'. As long as those things aren't overwhelming to the point that there really wasn't a choice to begin with, I don't think it would qualify as a railroad.