Let's examine that railroad ...

[wotmaniac]

Railroading.  We all know it.  Often times, the term invokes a kind of primal reaction that causes us to nerdrage like nothing else.  Other times, as long as that train is going to awesometown, then "all aboard".

But I'm not really concerned with "good" railroading vs. "bad" railroading -- that is largely a matter of the narrative put forth by the GM.  What I'm more concerned with in this thread is examining the different "types" of railroading.

Allow me to further clarify.

The way I see it, there are 2 basic "types" of railroading: "soft" and "hard".
The "hard" railroad is when MC is dictating your actions/decisions; and this can be done to varying degrees.  Whether you're faced with 1 or 2 real options in a sea of false options, or MC is going so far as to straight-up saying "you will go to Bullshittown and find the macguffin".

The "soft" railroad is more player choice oriented, and is simply defined as narrating events in such a way that the players want to do what MC wants them to do -- especially when they have all the relevant information (intentionally restricting information to influence decisions falls in to the "hard" category).  In this type of "railroad", there is no sleight of hand, no false/limited choices, no "do it or else" -- MC is just able to present such a compelling scenario that the players genuinely want make the "right" decisions.

Anyways, this was just a nebulous musing that happen to have crossed my mind today -- I'd like to here your thoughts.

Thanks.

[SneeR]

Well, unfortunately, I have to through in a wrench here. I like your idea of hard and soft railroading; that is a good classification.

First, though, is that you make hard railroading sound bad. My favorite example of a railroad with no options is to kill the characters in a cataclysmic event and have them fight their way out of Hell. That would be an example of fun har railroading.

I also must posit that there is an in-between place, a semi-soft (in terms of cheese) or malleable (in terms of metal) railroading style. It is where the player realizes that the DM has placed the PC in a situation that he probably should not have to keep the story unchanged. The player realizes something is important for the story and is therefore hesitant to mess with it--a sort of guilt-induced railroading.

The example I am thinking of is when my player was about to kill an unconsious sorcerer, and the DM told me, "When you touch the sorcerer's body, you feel a light well up within your chest, and you realize that your goddess thinks he is not beyond redemption."
Clear DM-speak for, "Don't kill this NPC, try roleplaying to make him your ally instead!" That was so obvious, so my character suddnly changed his course of action because I was afraid of killing and NPC that the DM had awesome plans for.

In fact, when the NPC learned the fighter killed his evil father, he tried to kill us. We beat him into KO, but my character still wouldn't kill him because I was afraid to, even now. So we cut his hands off so he couldn't cast spells, healed his wounds, and left him by the road.

Now the NPC has awesome shadow construct hands and is going to come back as a recurring villain. Did I make the right choice? Not sure. But I felt pressured into it despite not being directly railroaded, AKA hard railroaded, into it.

There you go. Semi-soft railroading.

[veekie]

The key is the availability of choice to the players.
Player's Domain:
Character's personality
Character's actions(barring mind control, and even then, best done by telling the player hes under whose control and to act appropriately)
Character's attributes
Plausibility and consistency, while the DM creates and defines the world, the players determine if it's plausible within the world as defined. Meteors do not randomly fall out of the sky and clock people on the head for example. If one does, it must stand to reason someone arranged for a meteor to clock someone else on the head.

DM's domain:
Clues, flags, hooks, all the things that make players want to look at something
Environment, the background setting that makes it all possible.
Detail, Law of Conservation of Detail, what you do not describe, effectively does not exist. Use this to guide them where you will, or drop random details if you want to get them moving and don't really care where to.
NPCs, what they're plotting, what they're doing. This is how the world changes behind the PCs sight. Use wisely.
Power Level, the tricky bit. When the enemies are high power relative to PCs, they are effectively railroaded as Powerful NPC E swoops in and battles Powerful NPC A while the PCs spectate.

[raith0]

I have to say i think Hard Railroading has its uses for good DMs.  I like using a hard railroad type story to begin a long term campaign to forge the group of individuals into a unit.  even if its as cheesey as goblins raid the town and then the mayor/ruler tells them they have to track down the lot of them and kill them before they destroy the towns way of life.   just something to make the PC not just adventure together but start the IC bonds between them to make things more compelling and let me find ways to challange them out of combat

[wotmaniac]

kill the characters in a cataclysmic event and have them fight their way out of Hell.

this train is definitely on a non-stop trip to awesometown.

yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the "hard" railroad is necessarily bad -- but the bad ones are definitely of the "hard" type (I can supply a venn diagram if needed ).

The OP question came to me as I was revisiting this. 
I've been tossing around ideas on just what kind of campaign I want to try this with.  I'm in the midst of planning an e6 campaign for later this year, and thought that it might be something cool to drop in once character advancement starts to stagnate (which I figure might start to happen after about 60+ xp)

[RobbyPants]

The key is the availability of choice to the players.

Yes.  This.

The game is fun only if the players are allowed to make meaningful decisions.  If they don't have player agency, MC might as well be writing a book.  Now, if MC stats out a really linear series of encounters, he needs to be open to the PCs solving these in a way that he didn't expect.  Perhaps his intent was to put them on a single path from A to B.  There's nothing wrong with setting up the base narrative that way so long as he's open to different approaches.  The problem with railroading comes when MC blocks any attempt the PCs make to get from A to B that isn't on the rails.  That's not good.

[Arcane-surge]

I find that the test of railroading is what happens when players try to go off the rails. If the MC pitches a game to the players going, "Cataclysmic event, and then you fight your way out of hell, hijinks ensue" and they're into it, and they go along with it, is it railroading? Their options are limited, but limited by their choices. When it becomes bad seems to be if halfway through that the party changes their minds and tries to do something else, and the MC pushes them back into the original path by limiting their options.

[wotmaniac]

As I've defined things above, following the Law of Conservation of Detail would technically fall in to the "hard" railroad (again, not necessarily a bad thing).
However, I often find myself not following this

Okay, so here's the situation:
When we first started the current game I'm running, I made it abundantly clear that the basic theme was a macguffin treasure hunt, and that the artifacts found would be the center point of the final showdown with the BBEG.  I also made it abundantly clear that I just wanted to run a light game on which I wouldn't have to work too hard.  I even provided them several pages of ancient prophecy that was to serve as their plot points.  Everyone seemed to be on board.
Shortly after starting in on their adventures, they run in to the story antagonist -- a ubiquitous shadow organization/cult that is already a step ahead of them in the treasure hunt (put in simply to provide a sense of urgency on the part of the PCs).  So they take it upon themselves to change the game from treasure hunt to inquisition. 

I wasn't too keen on this, since the last game I ran was basically of the inquisition type (and lasted for over 2 years -- needless to say, I've had my fill of the complexities inherent in that type of game).  However, I decided to indulge them for a little while, hoping that they would quickly get it out of their system.  After 4-5 sessions of banging that drum, I decided to throw the treasure hunt back in their face, hoping that they would get back to following the bread crumbs ..... which they promptly ignored.  I've tried several more times to steer them back on to the bread crumbs, but each time they blatantly ignore it.  Their philosophy seems to be that if they eliminate the shadow organization, then they can simply go on about collecting their macguffins at their leisure without having to worry about outside threats.  I've tried to dissuade them from this, doing everything short of just telling them flat out that there is no way they are ever going to achieve this before they cult themselves have all the macguffins (though I have painstakingly tried to give them that impression repeatedly).

I've even taken time to out-of-game explain to them the various reasons for various plot devices, etc; thinking that perhaps I had miscommunication my intent with the way I presented them.  Still nothing.
I've even gone so far as to out-loud say that I don't want to play inquisition, but instead want to do the treasure hunt.  Guess what we're still doing.

And now for how Law of Conservation of Detail comes in to play:
I work very hard to create living breathing worlds.  If the players want a piece of detail, I ought to be able to give it to them, whether it is relevant to plot or not.  I often describe various aspects of the world for no other reason but to instill the sense that the setting really is a real place.  This also gives the players a lot of sand to move around the box.  But I also make sure that the players have a clear vision of the campaign goals, and I try to make it pretty obvious what's relevant and what's not.  Up until this particular game, I've never had a problem -- with the exception of those scant few that have obviously gone out of their way to intentionally derail the game for their own sick amusement, my players are pretty good a following the bread crumbs.

I"m sure I had a point I was trying to make, but it seems to be lost to A.D.D. for the moment; so I'll just stop rambling for now.

[veekie]

For the cult thing, what I did when the players started haring off on a tangent is to have other interested parties acting on the macguffins in the background, so while they're semi-effectively crushing one threat the other Bigger Fish had taken all the other toys to a more entertaining place.

What kind of world would it be if only one shadowy organisation was after the shiny.
Throw in opportunists, people with other goals(that happen to intersect), and at least one other organization they never make contact with making off with the goodies if they're distracted with the first org. The problem is making them realize that the more time they spend suppressing one rival the more others will hit their true objective before they do.

[Shadowhunter]

I'll quote myself from another topic that mentioned railroading:

As for "follow clues and pursue a story" that's just what you call "railroading" to make yourself feel like a better DM. All those clues you want them to follow are clues you planted specifically for them to find, and derive the conclusion you want them to derive.

You and I have vastly different interpretations of what constitutes "railroading" then.

Planting clues: not railroading.
Pushing the players to find the clues regardless of what they otherwise would do: railroading.

Following your story: not railroading.
Forcing your players to follow your story, even if it should be heading somewhere else: railroading.

I honestly don't see how spreading clues constitutes railroading. It's possible that I'm misunderstanding you, but wouldn't every single Investigative style RPG since the dawn of time then count as railroading?



But to get back to the topic:
Playing intelligently should not be punished, it should be rewarded.

Just because the players have what they think is a solution doesn't mean you have to accept it. But do think about it both once or twice and see if it could be adapted to work.

Just because you don't like what your players have come up with doesn't mean you should ignore it if it would make sense that it worked. Creativity should be encouraged.

Players came up with a sneaky plan to kill your BBEG?
Consider letting that work like planned, if you know that it would be a battle your players would enjoy.
Think your players would want to have more of a challenge for an BBEG and would just pour another gallon of ice into the stomach, polish their brass balls and spit their hands (figuratively speaking) if you make some last-minute adjustments? Then by all means go ahead and let's do this epic battle then.


Final point: As a DM, base your decisions of what would work for the group you're playing with.
Some people would want to find a ancient gateway and not just be able to teleport to FBBEGotET (Final Big Bad Evil Guy of the End Times) because it would be deemed "boring" or "anti-climactic" or "mundane" to use a simple spell to be able to get there.

Some people would see said ancient gateway as a ginormous railroad if they think that a simple teleport should be enough and that the DM shouldn't force them to find this gateway because they're going up against the FBBEGotET and they should be powerful enough to teleport there without extra help.

Two different points of view, both equally valid. As long as it's a matter of Perception and not Mechanics, there's no Universal Truth.
Soulknife being a sucky class though, that's a mechanic issue and no matter how cool you think it is, the rules doesn't support your delusion.
Soulknife sucks, that's Universal Truth.

So, figure out what kind of people are in your group and adjust accordingly.



PS:If you happen to be part of a group where everyone have the same Perception and are all good enough at the game to see what works Mechanically and what doesn't, count yourself blessed. DS.

[wotmaniac]

For the cult thing, what I did when the players started haring off on a tangent is to have other interested parties acting on the macguffins in the background, so while they're semi-effectively crushing one threat the other Bigger Fish had taken all the other toys to a more entertaining place.

What kind of world would it be if only one shadowy organisation was after the shiny.
Throw in opportunists, people with other goals(that happen to intersect), and at least one other organization they never make contact with making off with the goodies if they're distracted with the first org. The problem is making them realize that the more time they spend suppressing one rival the more others will hit their true objective before they do.

What part of "keeping it simple" did you miss?
Seriously though .... this is the route that I'm starting to shift towards.  I just figured that "you find them, they get away" would be enough after they see it enough times ... I was wrong.

This last session I finally got a bit of a jaw-drop.  They had been operating under several aliases and disguises, and then went so far as to  hire multiple "adventuring parties" that matched the description of those disguises to go around and wreak havoc upon the countryside, in an effort to throw any pursuer off their trail and remain as anonymous as possible -- this had been going on for about the last year of playing.  Well, I concluded the last session with them getting a note telling them to go to "random warehouse 'A'" and pick up a "present" ... the "present" was actually a large crate that contained the slain bodies of those they had hired (oh, and there were no souls to resurrect); and the "bill of lading" was the names of those in the box, as well as the names of family members they left behind, with a note saying something to the effect of "this is what your shenanigans have caused".
They're not going to be doing that anymore. 

[veekie]

Basically, the idea is overwhelming them with complexity in every other direction. It's the opposite of Conservation of Detail, where they are overwhelmed in every other way and must pick the only one that they have a chance on.

[wotmaniac]

@ shadowhunter:
that actually speaks to the heart of the OP.  which is kinda why I started the thread .... to more clearly define terms.
as to the dispersal of clues and investigations, etc.: it is the presentation wherein the railroad lies .... it may be "soft", but there nonetheless.

Basically, the idea is overwhelming them with complexity in every other direction. It's the opposite of Conservation of Detail, where they are overwhelmed in every other way and must pick the only one that they have a chance on.

well, they seem to like going the exact opposite direction that I try to nudge them, so this just might work.  there will be so much going on that they'll no choice but to focus on the goal.

[braininthejar]

All needs to be taken in moderation. I have played with a GM who would take a fully "open sandbox" approach to Werewolf The Apocalypse. We would get regular "daily news" typically with a plot hook or two, plus whatever happened in the caern at the time. We were free to pursue whichever we liked and those we didn't touch (or failed to complete on time - most of his intrigues were hard if you didn't understand his way of thinking) would solve themselves - either the npcs tackled them or they came to a tragic conclusion.

It was more depressing than a World of Darkness game should be and that is saying something. Too many problems to solve (and with our character concepts, we were unable to just ignore them), growing frustration when we failed ( WoD is full of manipulative assholes and impulsive werwolves ), Murphy's laws leading to new urgent missions (like when, after an hour of planning, we were about to silently capture a villain, when an npc we had forgotten about decided to attack him head on, going crino in a restaurant full of people. And of course, with the rich guys there, there was a paparazzi there as well...)

The unfinished plots kept multiplying like a hydra's heads until the conflicts between characters got to the players and the party fell apart.