Choo Choo - The Fine Art of Railroading


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

If a group of players are told that there is an adventure, that it is pre-written, and that it's pretty linear as written, then they can buy into that and play it, or not. Neither is intrinsically a bad choice. I have personally enjoyed linear games in the past, and sandboxes too, and I will enjoy both again in the future.

However this is not good advice:

Quote:
The art of GM'ing has always been to manipulate the player into doing what you want them to do without the player realizing that they have been manipulated.

If you have to manipulate your players into doing things, then they haven't bought into the fundamental nature of the game. You've said it's X, it isn't X, so you're lying to them. You do not need to do that. If you really want to run a linear path adventure, then advertise it as such when recruiting. That way you will not be lying and your players will not be kicking the edges of the story, because they know and have agreed to follow the obvious path.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:

If a group of players are told that there is an adventure, that it is pre-written, and that it's pretty linear as written, then they can buy into that and play it, or not. Neither is intrinsically a bad choice. I have personally enjoyed linear games in the past, and sandboxes too, and I will enjoy both again in the future.

However this is not good advice:

Quote:
The art of GM'ing has always been to manipulate the player into doing what you want them to do without the player realizing that they have been manipulated.
If you have to manipulate your players into doing things, then they haven't bought into the fundamental nature of the game. You've said it's X, it isn't X, so you're lying to them. You do not need to do that. If you really want to run a linear path adventure, then advertise it as such when recruiting. That way you will not be lying and your players will not be kicking the edges of the story, because they know and have agreed to follow the obvious path.

I disagree. Every iteration of every DMG, of every guide, for every game, talks about giving players the "illusion of choice" as being the most important element. That is manipulation at the core and it is simply a part of this game.


Being a railfan myself, I don't mind a railroad as long as it has an interesting track layout. I have been following all released Paizo PbP except Hell's Vengeance (too new right now) since Rise of the Runelords on these messageboards, and in some cases have searched through multiple instances to find a good one (occasionally more than one), so even though I don't have the actual published AP material (except for the Player's Guides), I have some ability to make a judgment on the railroad aspects of these APs.

For instance, the default starts of Skull & Shackles and Wrath of the Righteous seem like really cheesy railroads with no interesting track layout to them. However, in this awesome Skull & Shackles PbP (unfortunately inactive), DM Barcas went to the trouble to rewrite Book 1 to make it really awesome -- even though it still had a (much delayed) single-track part to get the main PC group onto the pirate ship (a couple actually ended up on there by other route with completely different starting points), this set the stage to make the adventure very interresting therreafter (eventually the PCs became not just run-of-the-mill-but-more-competent pirates, but privateers). Likewise, some GMs have gone to some trouble to make the start of Wrath of the Righteous more interesting -- this seems to be more popular, since the sheer amount of work needed to pull this off is less.

Shattered Star and Rise of the Runelords (both not ordinarily characterized as sandboxes) and Kingmaker (the one AP that seems to be regularly characterized as such), on the other hand, seem to have more interesting starts natively (even though in the case of Shattered Star, the player choices in some of the PbPs seemed facepalm-worthy).

And of course, I can't let this totally go withotu a shoutout to Inspectre's Curse of the Crimson Throne -- I have followed an excellent apparently standard PbP of it, but Paizo should have hired Inspectre to do the Curse of the Crimson Throne Anniversary Edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Snowblind, that article, The Railroad Manifesto, by The Alexandrian is a very well written essay on the moment the GM goes wrong with railroading. But that terribly, wrongful moment, when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome, is not what I mean by railroad.

My definition of railroad is an inflexible path for the adventure. It fits the metaphor: a train on a railroad has to follow the railroad.

Railroads are not bad. Planning out a path leads to higher quality in writing the adventure. Instead, it is that manifesto moment, when the GM negates the players' choices to continue following the railroad, that is bad. With the invisible railroad metaphor we have been using in this thread, that moment never comes. The Alexandrian debunked the myth that, "Nobody minds the railroad if the destination is Awesome Town!," but the truth is that nobody minds the railroad if the destination is their destination.

Lucy_Valentine wrote:
If you have to manipulate your players into doing things, then they haven't bought into the fundamental nature of the game. You've said it's X, it isn't X, so you're lying to them. You do not need to do that. If you really want to run a linear path adventure, then advertise it as such when recruiting. That way you will not be lying and your players will not be kicking the edges of the story, because they know and have agreed to follow the obvious path.

I agree. Manipulating the players is negating their choices skillfully, so that they don't notice that their choice was negated. Though this avoids a direct argument with the players, it still sacrifices the roleplaying theme of player choice to continue toward a preconceived outcome.

However, I view manipulating the setting and NPCs to redirect the divergent path back toward the original path as a legitimate GM tool. If the players are consistent about their character's priorities, then I can predict how they will react to new events and try planning their path anew.

Let me give an example from The Hungry Storm, the third module in the Jade Regent adventure path. Hence, the rest of my comment is under a spoiler shield.

The Hungry Storm:
This module is about the party traveling over the northern ice cap to go from Avastian (Inner Sea) continent to the Tian Xia continent. They learned that a villain Katiyana was controlling deadly morozoki storms and learned the location of her headquarters after battling an evil minion of hers. The module assumed that the party would divert to Katiyana's headquarters and battle her, instead of heading along the caravan path across the ice cap.

But the PCs were highly motivated to reach Tian Xia. They had no interest in diverting. Let someone else defeat the villain. Thus, they left the rails laid out by the module.

I let them. In fact, I staged a non-module encounter with some Snowcaster Elves, a tribe from People of the North, so that they could pass their information to someone else who cared.

But Katiyana was using the storms to kill caravans and was watching the caravan path. Three weeks later (after a game session of travel-based adventures that had nothing to do with her), she spotted the caravan. I manipulated Katiyana herself so that instead of staying safely hidden, she appeared to taunt the party before sending the storm. And I had planned the abilities of some NPCs to allow the party to survive the storm.

Afterwards, the party left the caravan in the hands of capable NPCs and traveled to Katiyana's headquarters to battle her. The adventure was back on the railroad.

Consequence: Ignoring a villain who kills caravans is shortsighted for heroes in a caravan.
Consequence: Taunting the heroes before trying to kill them makes the conflict personal.
Consequence: Hiring the best NPCs available to run your caravan can save your life.
Consequence: Sneaking up on a villain after she thinks you are dead, without a caravan in tow, is easier.
Game point: The module expected the party to avoid all morozoku storms. Surviving one was more exciting.

Working hard to give the players an illusion of a choice is less fun and more worry than giving them a real choice and then building a spur back to the railroad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To me, the question is which do you prefer:

A) playing and having unexpected things happen
B) talking about what you did last time in gaming

If you prefer A, then don't plan and don't railroad. If you like B more, then railroad is for you. I've known people who genuinely liked B more than A. They liked A, they just liked B more.

As both player and GM, I prefer A.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
I disagree. Every iteration of every DMG, of every guide, for every game, talks about giving players the "illusion of choice" as being the most important element. That is manipulation at the core and it is simply a part of this game.

Just because some people think it's good advice, does not mean that it is good advice. It's terrible advice.

Consider the following four scenarios:

1) I am playing a linear game. I knew when I signed up that the game would be linear. I decided I didn't mind that. I wrote a character concept and motivation that fit with the brief plot synopsis. I might or might not be enjoying the game, but the linearity is not a problem.

2) I am playing a sandbox game. I knew when I signed up that it would be a sandbox, so I read up on the world description and wrote a highly motivated character who would make their own action. I might or might not be having fun, but the character at least fits the game.

3) I am playing a sandbox game. When I signed up I was given the impression that there was a plot to follow, so I wrote a rather reactive character who would have followed a specific plotline until it resolved. Unfortunately the plotline resolved after three sessions and now I am OOC confused and bored because the plot I was expecting has not been delivered and the character I've just about grown fond of no longer fits the game.

4) I am playing a linear game. It was advertised to me as a sandbox game, so I wrote a highly motivated, opinionated, active character who has Stuff they wanted to Do. Unfortunately, the GM decided Illusionism was a good idea, and so has been steering events toward a scripted linear plot. Every time I diverge from the script I get hammered back, and I'm annoyed and frustrated by it. I haven't quite decided whether to jack it in, or whether to stick with it, but my irritation and frustration is manifesting itself in me kicking against the plot in an attempt to destroy it, and this in turn is making the rails more obvious for everyone else.

I can enjoy a linear game. I can enjoy a sandbox. I resent being lied to. And I'm not alone in that. If you've written (or bought) an interesting linear adventure, just tell me you've got an interesting linear adventure, and I will follow the tracks and enjoy it for what it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like we need a middle ground term between "sandbox" and "railroad". Like, "freeway". A freeway campaign still has a definite direction and will always average around the same endpoint, but allows PCs plenty of versatility in how they react to problems. If we accepted this term, many APs would be classsified as "freeways"—you're always going to end up fighting the Big Bad, but you might form different alliances, take different paths, etc.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

IMO, "railroad vs. sandbox" is a false dichotomy. The GM should be responsible for generating the environment for the PCs to interact with as well as NPCs that have their own goals and act independently of the PCs (unless reacting to the PCs' actions).

In classic adventure/campaign design, it is the NPCs that are usually the drivers and/or initiators of the adventure plot/campaign arc; the PCs typically are agents or antagonists of the central/initiating NPC(s). The NPCs should have sufficiently detailed goals and motivations to allow the GM to judge the most common ways they act to achieve their goals and deal with the aid/hindrance of the PCs. Even with a "railroad," the GM should enforce the concept of actions (and inaction) having consequences, instead of "forcing" specific outcomes.

It is rare to have a group of players that know exactly what they want their characters achieve in the campaign world and develop their own plans to do so. Also, because the GM is only one person, generating and keeping track of a "true" sandbox, that dynamically accounts for the actions of all its inhabitants (not just the PCs) over time, is a logistical nightmare (choosing each and every monster's and NPC's daily actions and ruling how they interact, both with the PCs and each other). So, the NPC-driven/initiated method is used more often.

However, the GM should build in a certain amount of flexibility to allow the PCs multiple ways to successfully reach the adventure plot's/campaign arc's climax. Even if there are specific requirements that need to be met in a certain order, each of the steps should have multiple "victory conditions" and/or "side quests" to allow the PCs to attain personal goals.

Of course, this is normally considered part of the "social contract" between the players and the GM: The GM and the players should agree on the themes and general types of plots/story arcs before starting play. Since the GM will be the one developing the adventure or campaign arc, they should have an idea about what would interest the players' characters; similarly, players usually have more fun and gameplay is more immersive when their characters "fit" with the adventure's or campaign arc's encounters.

One possible method that can be used as a "middle ground" between a completely linear "railroad" and a completely open "sandbox" is to plan the adventure plot or campaign arc as a flowchart or matrix, taking into account significant decision points and their consequences. This avoids some of the issues with both linear "railroads" (encounters or events are basically pass/fail, either the PCs succeed or the adventure/campaign ends/is stuck) and open "sandboxes" (the PCs go hunting a lich/wyrm red dragon... at 5th level; the group falls into PvP conflict or just break up; or maybe the PCs just don't adventure and instead want to start businesses or pursue other goals, which usually isn't a very exciting way to spend a session), but requires a bit more preparation by the GM than linear plots or "winging it."


Irontruth wrote:

To me, the question is which do you prefer:

A) playing and having unexpected things happen
B) talking about what you did last time in gaming

If you prefer A, then don't plan and don't railroad. If you like B more, then railroad is for you. I've known people who genuinely liked B more than A. They liked A, they just liked B more.

As both player and GM, I prefer A.

This. And I am type A as well.

Was once involved in a very short lived campaign that was advertised as sandbox but we soon discovered that the only time PC actions had any influence at all is when one of the players came up with a idea the GM wanted to cop.

We even had a couple of gaming sessions where we all sat around for hours talking about PC motivation and other roleplay elements but actually none of that mattered. The GM had a story to tell and that plot was immune to PC actions or dice rolls. Like game-breaky totally immune.


HWalsh wrote:
Pan wrote:
While I agree that a lot of that makes thematic sense, Id be careful not train the players to act a certain way. If they feel like anytime they don't rise to the challenge they will be punished, they will never back down again. Eventually, choices evaporate and you have trained them to accept the railroad. YMMV

Training them to weigh realistic consequences isn't a bad idea. Following the story shouldn't be frowned on.

As to not backing down... That is kind of the hallmark of an adventurer. Adventuring is super dangerous but super rewarding. It's not a job that suits the timid.

I mean, what would Lord of the Rings have been like if, at the council, the members of the Fellowship said, "Oh man. This is dangerous, forget this, hey Elrond, here's the Ring you can handle this one."
snip

Actually there was only one character who stepped forward and asked, "What must I do?"

Everyone else fell in line out of loyalty/respect (and fear - "never trust an elf"; "it is a gift").

Also, using a book or script (talk about a railroad!) as an example for TTRPG player/PC actions is a little misleading.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:

If a group of players are told that there is an adventure, that it is pre-written, and that it's pretty linear as written, then they can buy into that and play it, or not. Neither is intrinsically a bad choice. I have personally enjoyed linear games in the past, and sandboxes too, and I will enjoy both again in the future.

However this is not good advice:

Quote:
The art of GM'ing has always been to manipulate the player into doing what you want them to do without the player realizing that they have been manipulated.
If you have to manipulate your players into doing things, then they haven't bought into the fundamental nature of the game. You've said it's X, it isn't X, so you're lying to them. You do not need to do that. If you really want to run a linear path adventure, then advertise it as such when recruiting. That way you will not be lying and your players will not be kicking the edges of the story, because they know and have agreed to follow the obvious path.

No, it's really, really good advice. How much time do you think DMs have to prepare for every eventuality? DM'ing is really hard work, much more time consuming that being a player. Players just truck up, interact a bit, and then wander off at the end of the session. The DM, on the other hand, has had to create all of the stuff they are playing with. Even if you have handy tricks, shortcuts, are really great at improvisation (and not all DMs are, even some very good ones), and other dodges to reduce that time, it is still time the players don't have to put in. if you are remotely busy, have a family, and so on, you do not want to have to create multiple versions of stuff in case the PCs want to wander off in a different direction.

That's not to say that the players should not be given any choice at all. But in the end, the DM may have some cool ideas of his own, which the players might even enjoy. It seems unbalanced for the players to have absolute choice and the DM none at all. The DM is a person - a player of the game too.

And since many people are playing in plotted games using published modules, there will be an assumption that at least the basic premise of the adventure will be stuck to - the players will have appreciate that, and that will necessarily restrict their choices to some extent. In the end, that may even come down to what sort of character they play - i.e. someone who is actually motivated to do the adventure, rather than do something else.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:

If a group of players are told that there is an adventure, that it is pre-written, and that it's pretty linear as written, then they can buy into that and play it, or not. Neither is intrinsically a bad choice. I have personally enjoyed linear games in the past, and sandboxes too, and I will enjoy both again in the future.

However this is not good advice:

Quote:
The art of GM'ing has always been to manipulate the player into doing what you want them to do without the player realizing that they have been manipulated.
If you have to manipulate your players into doing things, then they haven't bought into the fundamental nature of the game. You've said it's X, it isn't X, so you're lying to them. You do not need to do that. If you really want to run a linear path adventure, then advertise it as such when recruiting. That way you will not be lying and your players will not be kicking the edges of the story, because they know and have agreed to follow the obvious path.

I'd also point out that the characterization of "linear" is probably inaccurate. It's more like a river delta - things may branch a bit, but they end up heading to the same place in the end. So players will have influence, but the ultimate goal is nevertheless there irrespective of what they do.

As for lying to the players - I totally do that all the time. The PCs do not have, and are not entitled, to perfect knowledge. More broadly, if the DM takes out a Paizo AP from their bag at the beginning of play, a player expecting that this will be a completely free game where the players determine what is happening is fooling themselves. What you are describing above is not a problem with railroading or non-railroading, but problem about expectations of play style.

But, ultimately, we are talking black-and-white when the reality is shades of grey. Every DM will subtly be coercing their players in certain directions - it's in the nature of the job.

The Exchange

Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

To me, the question is which do you prefer:

A) playing and having unexpected things happen
B) talking about what you did last time in gaming

If you prefer A, then don't plan and don't railroad. If you like B more, then railroad is for you. I've known people who genuinely liked B more than A. They liked A, they just liked B more.

As both player and GM, I prefer A.

This. And I am type A as well.

Was once involved in a very short lived campaign that was advertised as sandbox but we soon discovered that the only time PC actions had any influence at all is when one of the players came up with a idea the GM wanted to cop.

We even had a couple of gaming sessions where we all sat around for hours talking about PC motivation and other roleplay elements but actually none of that mattered. The GM had a story to tell and that plot was immune to PC actions or dice rolls. Like game-breaky totally immune.

I think this isn't really correct. I've surprised my players plenty, but I still do what some might consider "railroading" (i.e. I have an overarching plot). "Surprise" and "non-railroading" are not synonymous. In fact, keeping aspects mysterious and withholding information from the players sort of requires a bit of forethought and "railroading".


The presence or absence of conflict is not a determining factor of sandbox vs. railroad. In fact, conflict is usually the centerpiece of a story, regardless of type (there are a few literary styles without conflict, but they aren't as common).

Something to consider, are you catering to the PC's (fictional people) or to players (you know, the other people at the table). I don't cater my games to the PC's, I cater my games to the players. I find out what they're interested in and build around that.

As a GM, I don't see the game session as a means to and expose my precious prep. Rather, I see my prep as the necessary work required to have my game session. I could give two shits about my prep work as long as the session is fun. I'm willing to throw all my work out the window at the drop of a hat if the players lead me in another direction that seems fun, because that fun (for me and them) is more important than the notes I prepped.

I can always recycle my notes for something else in the future. I can't get back the time spent on the session right now.


Irontruth wrote:

The presence or absence of conflict is not a determining factor of sandbox vs. railroad. In fact, conflict is usually the centerpiece of a story, regardless of type (there are a few literary styles without conflict, but they aren't as common).

Something to consider, are you catering to the PC's (fictional people) or to players (you know, the other people at the table). I don't cater my games to the PC's, I cater my games to the players. I find out what they're interested in and build around that.

As a GM, I don't see the game session as a means to and expose my precious prep. Rather, I see my prep as the necessary work required to have my game session. I could give two s*!+s about my prep work as long as the session is fun. I'm willing to throw all my work out the window at the drop of a hat if the players lead me in another direction that seems fun, because that fun (for me and them) is more important than the notes I prepped.

I can always recycle my notes for something else in the future. I can't get back the time spent on the session right now.

It's not so much "Oh God I lost all the work" as "Shit, what I had planned is gone. Now I've got to make something else up on the spot" (or possibly just before next session).

Obviously you need some ability to roll with the punches and improvise based on what the PCs do, but some GMs aren't as good without at least some of the prep work done up front.

The Exchange

For me, it's opportunity cost, not the prep itself. At the weekend, I would prefer to spend time with my family rather than sitting in the study labouring away on something that will never get used. Sure, maybe I can use it again (and maybe I can't) but it's not something I would like to make a habit of. And yes, while some DMs are great at improvising, I'm not so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I highly recommend: Never Unprepared (available here on the paizo store). It's a good how-to book on how to reduce the time you spend prepping, and increase the efficiency of the time you do spend. It's a good read and odds are you'll find something useful in it.

Second, I also recommend playing a few games outside your normal comfort zone. Playing some of the more improvisational roleplaying games has improved my GMing significantly. You get to spend time roleplaying AND practicing skills that are useful.

Creativity isn't an innate talent, it's a skill you have to practice. Find ways to incorporate that practice into the hobby you already enjoy.

Lastly, I off-load some of that creative burden onto my players. I'll even be blunt and tell them I don't have anything prepped. Then, when they ask me a question about an NPC, location, object, etc... I turn the question back around on them. I usually add something as well. For example:

Player: Is there a magic shop in town?
Me: Yes. You find it in a quiet part of town, something about the shop seems really off to you. What about the shop unnerves or creeps your character out?

As the player starts describing stuff, I take a moment to absorb what they're saying and prep an idea or two for myself. I once ran a 16 hour game over 3 days basically using that technique (combined with some generic prep and some other techniques), both players and I had a blast.

On the extreme other end of the spectrum, I also spent 6 months, on and off, working on a single location for another game, because I knew that a year long arc was going to conclude there and I wanted to have tons of stuff drawn out and prepped as best as I could. For that I knew the players would go there because they all had a group motivation and individual goals there as well. Not everything about it got used, but that just means I have some prep done in my pocket that I can repurpose if I need to.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


Lastly, I off-load some of that creative burden onto my players. I'll even be blunt and tell them I don't have anything prepped. Then, when they ask me a question about an NPC, location, object, etc... I turn the question back around on them. I usually add something as well. For example:

Player: Is there a magic shop in town?
Me: Yes. You find it in a quiet part of town, something about the shop seems really off to you. What about the shop unnerves or creeps your character out?

As the player starts describing stuff, I take a moment to absorb what they're saying and prep an idea or two for myself. I once ran a 16 hour game over 3 days basically using that technique (combined with some generic prep and some other techniques), both players and I had a blast.

I'll just say that as a player, I hate this technique. Making up world stuff in play breaks me out of character, making me think about the game and setting in way the character wouldn't be. Some of that is unavoidable, but I'd rather not add more than necessary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The best games tell a story.
The worst games don't.
The best GMs have a story they want to build with you.
The worst GMs have no story and hope a player(sandbox) or company(railroad) will do this for them.
The best player has a character story he wants to build with the GM.
The worst player hopes someone spoon feeds him something he personally finds entertaining.

If you are trying to avoid the evils of sandbox or railroading then start with a story rather than nothing(sandbox) or a module(railroading). Then take that story and view it through the lens of the character stories the players are making. And build a narrative that involves each character's story personally with the main story line in such a way that lets the main story BE the springboard that makes the character's story happen.

Can elements of sandbox or modules be used in your story as a shortcut? Sure if the character stories are particularly strong or if a module has a compelling story then feel to use that in your main story just don't rely solely on THAT or you become the GM with no story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I'll just say that as a player, I hate this technique. Making up world stuff in play breaks me out of character, making me think about the game and setting in way the character wouldn't be. Some of that is unavoidable, but I'd rather not add more than necessary.

Agreed. I think everyone has a line in the sand that separates TTRPGs from playing make believe. To me this method moves much closer to playing make believe than I am comfortable with as a player.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Lastly, I off-load some of that creative burden onto my players. I'll even be blunt and tell them I don't have anything prepped. Then, when they ask me a question about an NPC, location, object, etc... I turn the question back around on them. I usually add something as well. For example:

Player: Is there a magic shop in town?
Me: Yes. You find it in a quiet part of town, something about the shop seems really off to you. What about the shop unnerves or creeps your character out?

As the player starts describing stuff, I take a moment to absorb what they're saying and prep an idea or two for myself. I once ran a 16 hour game over 3 days basically using that technique (combined with some generic prep and some other techniques), both players and I had a blast.

I'll just say that as a player, I hate this technique. Making up world stuff in play breaks me out of character, making me think about the game and setting in way the character wouldn't be. Some of that is unavoidable, but I'd rather not add more than necessary.

Me: Have you tried Indian food? Some of it's really good.

Complainer: I tried it once, didn't like it.
Me: Just once? And you formed a complete opinion on it?
Complainer: Yep.
Me: But you were just complaining that you wish you could try new foods...
Complainer: Yup, I want to try new foods, but I don't like new foods.


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Lastly, I off-load some of that creative burden onto my players. I'll even be blunt and tell them I don't have anything prepped. Then, when they ask me a question about an NPC, location, object, etc... I turn the question back around on them. I usually add something as well. For example:

Player: Is there a magic shop in town?
Me: Yes. You find it in a quiet part of town, something about the shop seems really off to you. What about the shop unnerves or creeps your character out?

As the player starts describing stuff, I take a moment to absorb what they're saying and prep an idea or two for myself. I once ran a 16 hour game over 3 days basically using that technique (combined with some generic prep and some other techniques), both players and I had a blast.

I'll just say that as a player, I hate this technique. Making up world stuff in play breaks me out of character, making me think about the game and setting in way the character wouldn't be. Some of that is unavoidable, but I'd rather not add more than necessary.

Me: Have you tried Indian food? Some of it's really good.

Complainer: I tried it once, didn't like it.
Me: Just once? And you formed a complete opinion on it?
Complainer: Yep.
Me: But you were just complaining that you wish you could try new foods...
Complainer: Yup, I want to try new foods, but I don't like new foods.

Did I say I've only tried it once?

I can do it. I can put up with it. In limited doses. It's far from the worst thing I've run into gaming.
But I know I don't like it. Done enough, it breaks immersion in a way I find it hard to recover from.
I've been playing RPGs for close to 30 years with many GMs in many systems. I've actually got a pretty good idea what I like.

I'm also well aware that tastes vary and that what works for one person might not for another. Something you might do well to keep in mind.

And Indian food is great. But I still don't like beans, no matter how many times people offer them to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, back to the topic of the Fine Art of Railroading. The article by SimonSez, Choo Choo, The Fine Art of Railroading, discusses the need of the middle ground between railroad and sandbox. The article by The Alexandrian, The Railroading Manifesto discusses railroad-plot design that negates player choices.

They agree that giving the players no choice is bad. But in this thread, several people argue that a railroad plot is fine if that is what the players expect. We also have the invisible railroad and the illusion of choice, where the players are on a railroad plot but don't notice, either because the GM correctly predicted their choices, manipulated them into predictable choices, or lets them make only choices that don't matter. The Alexandrian in part 2 of his manifest talks of the invisible railroad, but since he defined railroading as negating players' choices, his definition of invisible railroad means secretly manipulating the players.

Snowblind pointed out that we are using several definitions of railroad, which is muddling the discussion. So let me give my definitions.
Railroad - A campaign with an inflexible plot. The PCs will go to predetermined places and face predetermined challenges.
Plot hook - An obvious sign to make a certain choice to follow the railroad.
Derailing - The players making a choice that would require rewriting the railroad plot.
Being railroaded - Having a player's choice negated to stick to the railroad. If it gets terribly annoying, I call it being tied to the railroad.
False choice - A choice that looks important but does not matter.
Predicted choice - A choice that the players make voluntarily, but causes no conflict with the railroad plot.
Branch - A choice that matters but the railroad plot was written with multiple parts to handle all choices. Thus, the inflexible plot has some flexibility.
Side rail - A choice that matters temporarily but its branch soon merges back into the original plotline.

A GM can respond to the players attempting to derail his railroad by either overtly railroading them to stick to the railroad, giving them a false choice to invisibly railroad them, letting them explore a side rail temporarily, or letting the derailment permanently branch from the original plot. I myself like to improvise side rails. To me, that is a surprising plot twist that adds excitement. My players notice that I am pausing to improvise, and the rascals congratulate themselves on outthinking the GM.

If the players always make predicted choices, perhaps because they follow the plot hooks, then the campaign can be the good kind of invisible railroad. It might not be truly invisible; instead, the players might deliberately give up their choices to get on with the adventure. That has fewer interesting challenges to me as a GM. But I can make good use of the lack of GM surprise to create more detailed scenarios that are more exciting to play through.

The advantage of a railroad is that the scenarios can be better developed. If the GM has to plan several scenarios to plan ahead for branches, then each scenario grows more sketchy. If the GM goes totally sandbox, by which I mean creating the setting without a plot, then without plot hooks to guide them the players are extremely likely to wander to boring parts of the setting.

Branches are not the only kind of permanent change allowed in a railroad. One vital choice at the beginning, the choice of the PCs in the party, causes variation in the game. The railroad is supposed to have enough flexibility to handle this choice. Likewise, the railroad is supposed to be flexible enough to handle random encounters, extraordinarily bad dice rolls, and extraordinarily good dice rolls.

thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Lastly, I off-load some of that creative burden onto my players. I'll even be blunt and tell them I don't have anything prepped. Then, when they ask me a question about an NPC, location, object, etc... I turn the question back around on them. I usually add something as well. For example:

Player: Is there a magic shop in town?
Me: Yes. You find it in a quiet part of town, something about the shop seems really off to you. What about the shop unnerves or creeps your character out?

As the player starts describing stuff, I take a moment to absorb what they're saying and prep an idea or two for myself. I once ran a 16 hour game over 3 days basically using that technique (combined with some generic prep and some other techniques), both players and I had a blast.

I'll just say that as a player, I hate this technique. Making up world stuff in play breaks me out of character, making me think about the game and setting in way the character wouldn't be. Some of that is unavoidable, but I'd rather not add more than necessary.

Sharing the creative burden with the players has the same problem as the pure sandbox: without plot hooks the PCs could end up exploring the dull parts of town. However, I do use this when the plot overlaps an area from the PC's background. I don't want to stomp all over the PC's backstory by setting up his father as the evil overlord when the player wanted a nice father, or vice versa. But this is best worked out with the player in email outside of gaming time. That makes it a surprise for the other players, but lets me plan ahead.

Nevertheless, I don't see how sharing the creative burden works with a railroad plot. Giving players more choices, choices about not just their character but also the setting, would lead to more derailments.


Mathmuse wrote:

Sharing the creative burden with the players has the same problem as the pure sandbox: without plot hooks the PCs could end up exploring the dull parts of town. However, I do use this when the plot overlaps an area from the PC's background. I don't want to stomp all over the PC's backstory by setting up his father as the evil overlord when the player wanted a nice father, or vice versa. But this is best worked out with the player in email outside of gaming time. That makes it a surprise for the other players, but lets me plan ahead.

Nevertheless, I don't see how sharing the creative burden works with a railroad plot. Giving players more choices, choices about not just their character but also the setting, would lead to more derailments.

Agreed, sharing the creative burden does NOT work with a canned plot. I mostly suggest it as a way of reducing GM prep work. A common complaint of why people say they don't GM, or say that railroading is necessary, is because of the prep work involved. Sharing that creative burden is one way to reduce (sometimes even eliminate) GM prep work needed to play the game.

On the flip side, if the players are truly interested in what the GM has prepped and the GM enjoys doing that prep, that can make for an awesome game.

I run both prep heavy games and zero prep games. I really do see the value in both, though in my high prep games, I still don't railroad and let the players go where their actions take them instead of wherever I thought it was going to go.


Just because it's a sandbox, doesn't mean it still isn't a box. The difference between a sandbox and a railroad game is whether the players are free to diverge from the presented plot hooks.

When I run games I try to present the players with all the problems and NPCs they might like to interact with and then let them do whatever they want. I look at it less as plot hooks and more as situations the PCs may choose to involve themselves with.

That being said, it's still a box. When I say I'm running the city game, there's no running off to be pirates. When the PCs try to climb over the walls of the box, I gently remind the players that they agreed to stay in the box when we made characters for the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right now the group I'm playing in is playing Giantslayer. After we finished the second module I said to the group, "This is stupid. Why are a group of sixth level characters going to stop a giant army? Why aren't we heading to the nearest big city and trying to convince whoever rules it that there is a huge threat and that they need to martial an army and meet it. In a situation like this, this is exactly what we should do. But the GM hasn't prepped all that crap and that's not how the module is written, so off we go to face a threat that looks on its face to be far above our pay grade."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not holding our GM at fault at all. We bought in. We agreed to follow the module. I'm just not entirely enjoying what I bought.

The whole AP feels very railroady. Collect the macguffins, kill the villains, rinse and repeat. The thing I really hate about it is just the feeling that what character I made really makes no difference at all. Whether I'm the reluctant sorcerer or the intrepid ranger bent on the destruction of his hated foe, the module rolls out the same.

I haven't played modules in years and playing this one reminded me why I stopped playing them- they're too restrictive and too generic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^I thhought part of the deal with Trunaeu was that any would-be allies thought of it as untenable and would be opposed to any bailout as being enough drain on more general defenses against Belkzen as to endanger regions far beyond Trunau.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
...Some people complain that any kind of coherent plot is a railroad and want their GM to sit there and just ask the players "So, what do your characters do today?"...

The same thing we do every day, Pinky...


Dark Die High wrote:

Right now the group I'm playing in is playing Giantslayer. After we finished the second module I said to the group, "This is stupid. Why are a group of sixth level characters going to stop a giant army? Why aren't we heading to the nearest big city and trying to convince whoever rules it that there is a huge threat and that they need to martial an army and meet it. In a situation like this, this is exactly what we should do. But the GM hasn't prepped all that crap and that's not how the module is written, so off we go to face a threat that looks on its face to be far above our pay grade."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not holding our GM at fault at all. We bought in. We agreed to follow the module. I'm just not entirely enjoying what I bought.

At this point, I would have the PCs talk to the local expert in geography to figure out which nearby cities would be willing to help. No, not the nearest city X, because they are busy at war with anti-X. That other city Y hates us. Distant city Z would help, but by the time you get there, everything will be over.

But if the setting has a plausible city W that could help, then a side rail adventure would be to go to that city and ask for help. It would involve travel and diplomacy. For a short side rail, the city claims that it needs more information on the threat, and sends you back to scout the giants to get that information, perhaps with a few scrolls of Sending and a helpful NPC, and then you play the module as written. For a true branch, they send a small army and the GM rewrites the module to involve your party with that army.

At a minimum, the GM can make up a good excuse. Yes, we townsfolk should request help from City W. But the town can send our usual dignitaries there. We need you PCs to go to the giants themselves and delay them until help arrives. If you foil their plans entirely, so much the better. Okay?

The limit is how much the GM can rewrite the module. I repurposed 2/3 of the scenarios in Tide of Honor, the fifth module in Jade Regent, to fit the new story that the players wanted, and wrote the other 1/3 myself. But I would have rewritten 1/3 of the module anyway to customize it for the party's strengths, so that was not much extra effort.

Dark Die High wrote:
The whole AP feels very railroady. Collect the macguffins, kill the villains, rinse and repeat. The thing I really hate about it is just the feeling that what character I made really makes no difference at all. Whether I'm the reluctant sorcerer or the intrepid ranger bent on the destruction of his hated foe, the module rolls out the same.

Modules are railroads. But they don't have to feel railroady. Whenever they feel railroady, then the railroad is getting in the way of the game.

Some modules don't feel railroady. For example, in the Rise of the Runelords adventure path the PCs become local heroes in Sandpoint and Magnimar and are asked to perform heroic errands for those towns for the first four modules. The only railroading is that saying no to a request for heroics would leave the party without an adventure. The plot hooks are easy.

In contrast, I am running Iron Gods. The forums on that adventure path warn that the transition from Lords of Rust to The Choking Tower is hard to motivate. The players have to leave Scrapwall and travel to Iadenveigh following one tiny clue that smells like a red herring. I have strengthened that clue and set up two other plot hooks leading to Iadenveigh to make the transition plausible for my particular PCs. And even then, they are going to spend a month of homebrew political adventure in Scrapwall dealing with their current motivations--making that slum a better place--before they are ready to leave. It is another side rail. They will make a difference, because that is why the players are playing.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

In face-to-face home campaigns, railroads don't do it for me.

Not as a DM.

And certainly not as a player.

As a DM, you could suggest that providing the illusion of choice is what you what to do - to allow the players to choose the route you have plotted out for them.

I would say that this is wrong. There does not need to be an illusion.
What you need is players/characters invested in the setting. You need bad guys with a plot.

Bad guys set their plots in motion,
That creates events/situations that act upon PCs or NPCs.
PCs decide how they will react.

There does not need to be an illusion of choice. If the characters decide to leave the area because bad stuff is happening, then they do.
They go somewhere else. The bad guys keep working on their plots.

The railroad is taking Amtrak from Chicago to New York.
A living campaign is being able to fly, drive, walk or whatever, and maybe deciding that you like it in Charleston West Virginia.

Meaningful choices and repercussions are what make a game interesting for me as a player and as a DM.

If you are talking about a game run at a convention or game store, sure, a clear objective is useful - there's are constraints on how long you have to get things to play out.

As a player in an home campaign, I hate having to choose a path because "Well, that's were the adventure is, so I guess we should go do it." even when that path is to go kill the evil queen who happens to be my long lost sister/mother/wife whatever.

Players who are willing to go on the adventure - to react to the events described by the DM - without prompting are great, but I'm not down with the idea of everything being forced to be a CR appropriate encounter. Town Guards don't magically go up in levels as PCs do.
Everyday goblin tribes don't have 12th level barbarians as their stock tribe member.

Wait, I can get a little passionate about this subject, what was the original question again...?

Apupunchau wrote:

(with snippage/paraphrasing)

Do you prefer a game that is more on the rails or completely free or a middle ground?

There is this imaginary line in the sand between sandbox and railroading?

1. Over towards the "free" end of the spectrum.

2. It is a spectrum - for me, railroads take less energy to run and less investment as a player to follow, all roads might lead to Amber, but there's lots of ways to get there.


the Lorax wrote:

In face-to-face home campaigns, railroads don't do it for me.

Not as a DM.

And certainly not as a player.

As a DM, you could suggest that providing the illusion of choice is what you what to do - to allow the players to choose the route you have plotted out for them.

I would say that this is wrong. There does not need to be an illusion.
What you need is players/characters invested in the setting. You need bad guys with a plot.

Bad guys set their plots in motion,
That creates events/situations that act upon PCs or NPCs.
PCs decide how they will react.

There does not need to be an illusion of choice. If the characters decide to leave the area because bad stuff is happening, then they do.
They go somewhere else. The bad guys keep working on their plots.

The railroad is taking Amtrak from Chicago to New York.
A living campaign is being able to fly, drive, walk or whatever, and maybe deciding that you like it in Charleston West Virginia.

Meaningful choices and repercussions are what make a game interesting for me as a player and as a DM.

If you are talking about a game run at a convention or game store, sure, a clear objective is useful - there's are constraints on how long you have to get things to play out.

As a player in an home campaign, I hate having to choose a path because "Well, that's were the adventure is, so I guess we should go do it." even when that path is to go kill the evil queen who happens to be my long lost sister/mother/wife whatever.

Players who are willing to go on the adventure - to react to the events described by the DM - without prompting are great, but I'm not down with the idea of everything being forced to be a CR appropriate encounter. Town Guards don't magically go up in levels as PCs do.
Everyday goblin tribes don't have 12th level barbarians as their stock tribe member.

To some extent yes. OTOH, I may not want to run a campaign in Charleston, WV, while I've got interesting stuff set up along the Chicago to NY route.

Meaningful choices are great. Some level of buy in to the campaign premise is good too.
If you've got bad guys with plots and the PCs reaction is to leave the area and avoid the bad guys, they can do so, but that can also be a campaign ending. "You leave the city, go settle peacefully in Charleston and some months later you're horrified to read names you recognize in the disaster in NY."


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Yep, that could happen, that could well be some of the repercussions!

I don't know what this "campaign ending" thing you mention is. =P

I've had new groups of PCs, hell, whole new groups of players, but my campaign is still the same home brew world from '79, sometimes some of those repercussions create the setting for another group.


Yeah, there is choosing your own solution... and then there is the problem player who picks Charleston. If the campaign premise was "Terror on the Rails!" ending in a huge battle in NYC. Then the guy who fled stays level 1 and learns basket weaving and yoga. He doesn't get the epic treasure, he doesn't fight epic battles, he doesn't save the day. He ends up bored and as safe as a normal dude can be in a world filled with heroes and villains. Or in game speak, you fled from the module and retired your character. Make a new character or turn your seat over to the guy that DOES want to play.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Problem player? Problem character? Doesn't matter.

It could be the whole party.

Unless there's a good reason, the answer shouldn't be:

Players: "We get off the train at Charleston."
DM: "You don't know why, but for some reason the train doesn't stop at Charleston." <choo-choo!!>
- or -
DM: "That night as you sleep, preparing to get off the train at Charleston, you have a dream of Fear and Loathing in Charleston."

I've seen railroads go all kinds of directions, but when a DM can't adapt to player actions or forcibly moves to negate player actions that turns the game into something not fun - and that applies to both sides of the screen.

I'm speaking about an ongoing campaign, not a one shot of some sort, an ongoing campaign which may comprise multiple different parties of PCs over different story arcs.

If someone's character wants to retire in Charleston and become a underwater yoga basket weaver, cool. If they want to make a new character to continue to play, cool. If they just want out of the game for whatever reason, cool.

At some point, denying player agency is going to force a player to make the choice between continuing to play in the campaign, and leaving the game table anyway. I've never seen a player quit a game because, "there's too much to do and I have so many different goals I could follow."


the Lorax wrote:

Problem player? Problem character? Doesn't matter.

It could be the whole party.

Unless there's a good reason, the answer shouldn't be:

Players: "We get off the train at Charleston."
DM: "You don't know why, but for some reason the train doesn't stop at Charleston." <choo-choo!!>
- or -
DM: "That night as you sleep, preparing to get off the train at Charleston, you have a dream of Fear and Loathing in Charleston."

I've seen railroads go all kinds of directions, but when a DM can't adapt to player actions or forcibly moves to negate player actions that turns the game into something not fun - and that applies to both sides of the screen.

I'm speaking about an ongoing campaign, not a one shot of some sort, an ongoing campaign which may comprise multiple different parties of PCs over different story arcs.

If someone's character wants to retire in Charleston and become a underwater yoga basket weaver, cool. If they want to make a new character to continue to play, cool. If they just want out of the game for whatever reason, cool.

At some point, denying player agency is going to force a player to make the choice between continuing to play in the campaign, and leaving the game table anyway. I've never seen a player quit a game because, "there's too much to do and I have so many different goals I could follow."

I guess that's mostly a difference in definition of campaign. Generally, I'd refer to a campaign as one group of PCs through some kind of continuous storyline - possibly multiple arcs, possibly just one. There can be attrition and replacement of PCs, but some continuity is needed. Another group of PCs starting up in a different time & place would be a different campaign, even if it was in the same world and some of the previous events got referenced.

I'm not sure from your post, what you'd call that difference. For the moment, I'll call it a game.

If a PC wants to retire to Charleston, fine. If that player wants to quit or replace the character, then fine.
If the whole party decides to ignore everything that's set up and all the hooks that have been planted for the game they wanted to play in and head off to Charleston for no particular reason, then I don't have an obligation to come up with adventures in Charleston to entertain them. I might, if I've got something interesting in mind. Most likely, I'll pull out of character and talk to the players about what they actually want from the game.

And I've never seen a player quit, but I have seen games fall apart because "there's too much to do and I have so many different goals I could follow." PCs want different goals. There's no focus. The group flips around, switching between one thing and another, chasing their tails, never making progress on any one goal.
I've also seen it happen in somewhat directed games, where there were too many clues and too many possible paths to follow, all in the service of the same main plot goal. In that case it was helped by knowing that the main villains were much tougher than we were so we were worried about any path that might lead to direct confrontation.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

If the PCs head off to Charleston for "no particular reason", that's getting awful close to the player quitting the game, because you're right, you ARN'T obligated to create adventures in Charleston if you haven't planned on it.What I'm talking about is being unwilling or unable to follow a player's or character's REASON FOR getting off in Charleston when they have a legitimate reason for doing so.

I will give you that lack of focus and frustration, lack of tangible victories can cause a game to suffer. The players just start trying anything to get some traction towards a goal and never seem to get anywhere.

I totally agree that sometimes taking a player aside and talking about what they're hoping for, what they want out of the game is the right thing to do, it doesn't mean that they'll get it, but at least it can give you some insight as to what the player is looking for (in or out of character).

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Choo Choo - The Fine Art of Railroading All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.