What do you consider Railroading?

[jc_madden]

I'll admit as a GM I'm a planner. I usually have a set of encounters already made up in front of me with meticulously chosen treasure bits and an adventure outline in front of me as well as NPC text and vivid scenery descriptions. I am not a big fan of the "random encounter" or the "random treasure hoard." I'm usually okay winging it but things go so much better when I have a least a smidgen of preparation. Of course players in usual fashion will take the first opportunity to step outside the limit of the scope of your planned adventure and run amok. I try to anticipate what they'll do and choose based on the players and their characters feelings and motivations. I try to never leave any one player out for too long, I try to give everyone something meaningful to do. I find that when a player gets bored that's when their character does something rash and foolish, usually to get attention (which should be a hint to the GM that they're focusing on someone too much and should share the love).

And sometimes I plan an adventure/story with a specific set of predetermined outcomes in mind. A lot of GM resources will tell you that's not a good idea because you may end up railroading your players and also being disappointed if they don't take the bait (as well as waste a lot of time).

The questions I pose to this forum is as the title states. What do you consider railroading? To give an example here's the setup for an upcoming adventure I'm running (with a spark of BW):

A quiet little frontier town has over the years reached a stable truce with they're neighboring elves and manage to cull the local monster population to a tolerable level. About the only problem the village has are a few goblin tribes in the area. Their are far too many of them and they breed way to fast to exterminate them all but they usually don't pose too much a threat as they are unorganized and spread thin. The occasional raid on the farmhouses in the area don't usually inflict many casualties and the banditry along most of the local roads is light as the men heavily patrol the area. Our players enter the scene just as local goblin activity seems to be on the rise. What's is stirring them up and why are they so organized lately?

A simple set up probably used a million times before. But here's where I want to branch off the beaten path. In town square is a statue of 4 heroes, they're features long since worn away by the elements, a placard beneath simply calls them the "unnamed heroes" who saved the town from a horrible curse long ago and then went missing, they are "lost but not forgotten".

The kicker of the story is that an charismatic and evil servant of the dark has recently cowed the goblins into submission and had some of his followers train and organize them. He plans to start a war but he wants some help. Enter a mysterious artifact of unknown origin, a slender rod with a small petrified hand affixed to it. Unbeknown to most of the townsfolk the local temple are the current stewards of the baleful device and have been tasked to keep it safe and hidden over the years. Some how the dark knight has learned of it's whereabouts and seeks to besiege the town and steal the artifact.

The artifact itself grants the user the ability to make wishes but exacts a terrible cost on it's user. It will always twist the wish in the most ironic and malevolent fashion. Furthermore if something is wished for beyond the scope of a normal wish spell it wills till grant it but will horrible and unforeseen repercussions.

Here's where I'm worried about railroading. As you probably already guessed the shrine of the unnamed heroes once bore the images of the four heroes now seeking to protect the artifact. So I will someone how let the players know of the rods powers, the temple fearing the dark knights success entrust it to them to courier it to another location, warning of it's dark power and telling them to NEVER use it. The dark night will of course intercept them and a battle will ensue. I have made the dark knight pretty powerful, about twice as powerful as the party actually, though not unbeatable he has a small warband of orcs and goblins on his side and his own dark magic. Ultimately I want the party to fall, to die horribly most likely for one of their own mistakes (though it might not be 100% their fault they're usually good at biting off more than they can chew, plus then never know when to RUN). Once survivor MIGHT be wise enough to use the rod to wish them out of the situation but how to wish the lives of 3 comrades, and whisk them out of harms way with only 1 wish? (all the time they'll have to use it) I'm guessing something like "I wish this all never happened" or something. BAM they're all awake and alive but 500 years in the past! That's the start of my campaign.

Can I get from A to B while providing maximum enjoyment for the players while making them feel like every step of the way they have been given a choice and NOT been railroaded into a predetermined outcome?

[RickoniX]

Most likely not, at least not if you want to avoid railroading, I don't know exactly what your players are like, or their characters, but never underestimate a determined PC, a little planning and a thought-out battle plan preying on the weak wills of goblins, and your black knight could find himself hoisted by his own petard.

Can you be sure that your players won't ignore your warnings, use the rod, and forsake goodness/each other/good common sense for ultimate power?

And lastly, if they really don't know when to give up, I doubt you'll get that one survivor you wanted :P

[jc_madden]

Most likely not, at least not if you want to avoid railroading Any suggestions?


a little planning and a thought-out battle plan preying on the weak wills of goblins, and your black knight could find himself hoisted by his own petard.True but the villain has a power that allows him to suck the life out of them and heal himself, if they defect they die.


Can you be sure that your players won't ignore your warnings, use the rod, and forsake goodness/each other/good common sense for ultimate power?Well I guess I can't but I'm pretty sure that they wouln't do that. Okay well one of them might, but I think he'd weigh the concequences heavily and probably restrain himself. The tempations is SUPPOSE to be there. If they bow to it the artifact become their master so it all works out one way or another. Not to mention they act wholely out of character.


And lastly, if they really don't know when to give up, I doubt you'll get that one survivor you wanted :P Well it would be a last ditch effort to save the party the badguy isn't so powerful as to whipe out everyone in one fail swoop.

[jc_madden]

Also what do you guys think about the story idea?

[Thor]

In my mind, that's railroading. When I run games, I like to set up 'Situations' but I never dictate what the outcome should be. When you decide the outcome in advance, you are definitely laying tracks.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing if your players are cool with it and willing to play along. On the other hand, if they're not willing to play along, you're going to wind up with some bad feelings.

Much like the characters with the rod of wishes, you are going to be tempted to use "Force" to get your players to go along with your predetermined plot. That's where the danger lies.

Anyway, here's a thread (http://nerdnyc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13356) where I describe how I try to run games.

Here's another one (http://nerdnyc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13380) in which I go into more detail about Bangs and how to make them.

It's important to note though that I don't believe there's "One True Way" to run or play a game. As long as your group is having fun, you're doing it correctly.

As for your set up, I think the concept is cool, though I'm not quite sure what the motivation is for the players to involve their characters? Is this a mission they've been sent on by superiors?

Also, the time travel aspect is cool, but the whole "this is where the campaign starts" thing sort of leapt out at me. I guess maybe where we should start is: what are you looking to accomplish by sending them into the past. Is it simply to explain the presence of the statues, or is it otherwise integral to what you would like to see happen in the game?

[jc_madden]

Thanks for the input Thor. I guess I am sort of setting up situations. I won't ever FORCE them to do anything. Yes I think it would be cool if it happened this way but It could go a lot of other ways and I'm prepaired to wing it if that happens. As for why the characters are involved that's going to be partly up to them. This is a new game and the 4 of them are making their party together. They all agreed they want to be "heroes" and that they prefer overland action rather than "dungeon crawls" though they won't object to one every once in awhile. So with that in mind my gears started turning and I came up with this adventure hook. If they bite great, if not I'll come up with something else but I'll still have a load of encounters that are challenging and appropriate for thier party to pull out any time even if it isn't in league with my chosen outcome. As for explaining the statue that's not important until it is. What I mean is the detail is insignificant and I wont make a big deal out of it, I'll just mention it in passing. The previous GM has a habit of pointing out red herrings so the party may or may not take special interest in it, I'm counting on them not. It wont be important unless they somehow do live up to my expectations and then later see it and smack their heads going AHHHH that's what that was, cool. By hat point they'll be strong enough to beat the dark night and that will be "the end." In my mind anyway they may die and that'll be the end of it too. My point is I like having these sort of plot twists and tie-ins predetermined in my mind so that it looks smooth and natural if it DOES come up. If it doesn't I wont be heartbroken (I used to get that way, I have about 3 COMPLETE campaigns scripted which players didn't take the bait and now they lie dormant waiting for the time when I can spring them on the party that actually follows the path) I just think of it as being prepaired.

[luke]

you realize that if you start incorporating Beliefs (and you mean it), you'll prolly have to change your style of play. It goes from, "Let's do this!" to "You want to do that? Cool, let's do it."

-L

[jc_madden]

Exactly! That's what I want because right now it's pretty much, players sitting around waiting for the GM to throw an adventure at them. I figure if I encorperate Beliefs slowly but surely the players will be motivated enough to tell ME what they want for their characters. Which I think is damn cool. I know it will take time but I'm prepaired for that.

[luke]

ok, that's a good start. Mechanically, I think you should restructure the rewards system immediately. They'll buck a little, but all it really does is put every player and class on even footing: They are all rewarded for doing stuff within three realms of their choosing.

-L

[Viper]

Hey JC, I think the best way to do this without having it be railroading is to keep the setup as you described, ie, the temple entrust the rod to the PCs, they take it to the sanctuary, get attacked by a vastly more powerful enemy, and make the wish that strands them in the past. The only difference is, you have the rod in the possession of an NPC, like a skittish temple acolyte or something, and he's the one that makes the wish at the opportune moment.

This way, you're not forcing any of the players to make a decision or do something that they dont want to do- all you're doing is using an NPC to get your players into the past, which is where the campaign is supposed to take place anyway.

Now, some people might still call this railroading, because the players are being taken into the past, somewhere that they may or may not want to go... but as it's all prologue to the campaign in any case, I'd give you some leeway.

One thing you might consider is allowing the players to change a belief, or gain an additional one once they realize they are in the past- for example, some of them might just want to get back home- others might want to actually fill the shoes of legend. It's one way to make the time-shift central to their characters without giving it away beforehand.

[jc_madden]

ok, that's a good start. Mechanically, I think you should restructure the rewards system immediately.

Well I am going to do that, but I'm not going to mention it until post adventure. I'll say hey Mike, you got 2,500xp for the session, most of that is from roleplaying your BITs.

As for your suggestion Viper, I think that's an even worse example of railroading. It may work for some players but not for mine. They'd resent that they're predicamant was due to an inept NPC rather than an inept PC. :D Ultimately I think I'll just leave it open ended they COULD survive or even succeed the attack by the Dark Knight, they could run, or they could fight get owned and wish themsleves out of it. The campaign doesn't HAVE to be in the past that was just my idea of an interesting story that might happen.

[RickoniX]

ok, that's a good start. Mechanically, I think you should restructure the rewards system immediately.

Well I am going to do that, but I'm not going to mention it until post adventure. I'll say hey Mike, you got 2,500xp for the session, most of that is from roleplaying your BITs.

As for your suggestion Viper, I think that's an even worse example of railroading. It may work for some players but not for mine. They'd resent that they're predicamant was due to an inept NPC rather than an inept PC. :D Ultimately I think I'll just leave it open ended they COULD survive or even succeed the attack by the Dark Knight, they could run, or they could fight get owned and wish themsleves out of it. The campaign doesn't HAVE to be in the past that was just my idea of an interesting story that might happen.I think that might be your solution, the party is to take the rod to a different temple, due to the dark knight's presence and inevitable attack and destruction of the town, a nervous young priest or two comes with them, the knight and a few hundred (thousand? :twisted:) goblins surround them, pinning them in a cave or some other situation in which they are safe, but not for long, have one priest screaming that the player with the rod (whichever random one the high priest handed it to) must wish for them to be taken to safety, and the other shouting in a similar manner that using the that evil thing would kill them all, let it be up to the players, but you shouldn't have had to have forced them into anything, you should have it set up so that it's simply how the logic flows, wherein they could do something entirely different to surprise you, but likely they'll follow your subtle machinations

[Judd]

I use Bangs as defined in Sorcerer. This means I put the PC in a situation where they must make a decision and the adventure springs from these decisions, one after another.

The world surely does react, creating even more drama and decisions for the player tomake. I never, ever have an outcome in mind or a destination. If I want a predetermined destination, I will go home and write a short story.

Bang! Resolve. React. Repeat.

Beliefs, Traits, Instincts, Resources, and Circles are all places on the BW sheet to look for inspirations for such things. That is where the player will be telling you what they want to explore with this character.

I would consider railroading any game where the GM has a clear idea of where they want the game to end up and seeks to move the game there.

[luke]

Ricky, that's railroading. And it's more than likely that such heavy use of force is only going to create bad feelings on both sides of the screen.

Lay out the initial possibilities on the table, find out what the players are interested in tackling. As they go along on their chosen path, toss in complications that logically tie into their current situation.

Like Judd and Thor said!
-L

[Thor]

Yup. Anyway, you're going to give the PCs and Rod of Wishes and you think you'll be able to predict what they'll wish for?! :shock: :shock: :shock:

You've got to be kidding me.

[Viper]

Ok, I guess I misunderstood - I thought the whole point was that the campaign took place in the past, in which case, the way the players got there is more a question of backstory than just one possibility among many.

But also, I'm not too clear on where the line is drawn with railroading anyway, and I'm not 100% convinced that it is necessarily a bad thing, all the time. What i mean is, taken to the extreme, with a control-freak GM, of course, it's a bad thing - but i've played in free-form games with little or no story direction or plot-moving by the GM and had a terrible, terrible time. In fact, I'd say that probably the worst experience I ever had was playing a game of Nobilis, where the GM was so careful to give us all free reign that it just devloved into utter chaos, with certain players having a wank and spending tons of time doing "in-character" things that happened to be completely irrelevant to the stated goal of the game, while leaving over half the group feeling completely uninvolved, with little to do.

I mean, where is the line drawn? If it's railroading to put them in a situation where they use the rod to escape into the past, isn't it railroading to put them in a situation where they have to protect the rod in the first place? I mean, you've created a powerful antagonist that is going to come after them, hard. Is that railroading? To put them in a situation where they have to have a conflict with him, even though you know that they're going to get beat?

My worry with being overly cautious about railroading is that the balance can very easily swing in the other direction, with the GM so worried about doing anything that will piss off his players that he will fail to do his part in creating something fun and memorable. In my book, it's fine to throw stuff at your players that seems unfair, that runs the risk of pissing them off- they'll just feel that much better when they figure a way out of it... and so will you when it's a way that was completely unexpected.

[jc_madden]

Yup. Anyway, you're going to give the PCs and Rod of Wishes and you think you'll be able to predict what they'll wish for?! :shock: :shock: :shock:

You've got to be kidding me.

Yeah pretty much. The rod does NOT belong to them. They are forbidden to use it. They are warned of it's power and it's danger. If they use it frivolously they will be sorry and they know that. I'll make sure they understand just how powerful it is. Can I be 100% sure they STILL won't try to abuse it? NO, of course not but they games going to be over mighty fast if they do, and they don't want that. I set the situation up for my wife (who doesn't play RPGs) and asked what she would do. Her second idea was going back in time. So I'm pretty confident that my players will solve the riddle. Not only that but they'll have a little hint much earlier in the story but I don't want to spoil it just yet I think it'll be a good read.

[Thor]

There are two concepts that often get lumped into the category of "railroading" but aren't necessarily the same. One is 'Force' and the other is 'Railroading.' Here are the definitions given to each at The Forge.

Force
The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result is Railroading. Originally called "GM-oomph" (Ron Edwards), then "GM-Force" (Mike Holmes).

Railroading
Control of a player-character's decisions, or opportunities for decisions, by another person (not the player of the character) in any way which breaks the Social Contract for that group, in the eyes of the character's player. The term describes an interpretation of a social and creative outcome rather than any specific Technique.

As you'll see, they're very similar. The big difference lies in the Social Contract. Let's define that:

Social Contract
All interactions and relationships among the role-playing group, including emotional connections, logistic arrangements, and expectations. All role-playing is a subset of the Social Contract.

So basically, it comes down to this: If you as a GM co-opt another player's choices in such a way that everyone at the table is okay with it, you're using Force. It's legitimate when applied carefully. If you as the GM co-opt another player's choices in such a way that people are not okay with it, that's Railroading. Railroading is never legitimate.

As an example, here's a technique that I use a lot that relies on Force, but I establish it as legitimate at the outset of play by making sure it is one of my GM powers in the Social Contract:

Scene Framing
A GM-task in which many possible Techniques are used to establish when a sequence of imaginary events begins and ends, what characters are involved, and where it takes place. Analogous to a "cut" in film editing which skips fictional time and/or changes location. A necessary feature of System.

When I use this technique, I use Force by telling you where your character is and the circumstances you're in.

"Dro, your trader, Stiga, has just crossed the boundary into your clan lands with his carts and two porters. You're at the tail-end of a long trip along your trade circuit, and all of you are dusty and tired. As you walk, you spot an obvious foreigner, ON YOUR CLAN LANDS, huddling and trying to hide in the bracken to the side of the road!"

Now, I didn't ask Dro where he was or what he was doing with his character at the beginning of this scene (which is how we opened our HeroQuest campaign a few weeks ago). I told him. That was Force. BUT! He has complete control over how his character reacts in this situation. He can kill the foreigner, capture him, befriend him, help him, enslave him...whatever! It's his choice and any choice he makes is legitimate.

I didn't introduce this situation because I want him to act in a certain way. And if I force him to act in a certain way, then I AM railroading. Instead, I introduced this situation because I want to see HOW he will react. That's going to tell all of us something about his character.

That said, just because you're using Force, doesn't mean there can't be a bit of give and take. Dro could have said: "instead of returning from the trade circuit, could I be coming back from bringing a gift to a neighboring clan? I'm walking by myself. I don't have my carts or porters with me."

Sure! That's perfectly cool.

Does this make sense?

[Viper]

yep. that'll do it. So yeah, I think force is good, but railroading is bad. I just haven't read enough on the subject to have a clear distinction of what people mean when they talk about railroading.