Railroading Fun

[jrs]

If folks are interested in past Forge discussions defining railroading, you may want to check out these threads:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1349">Is 'Railroading' A Useful Term
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4217">Illusionism: a new look and a new approach
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4405">So...What is Railroading? (Using Illusionism Terminology)

Note that the earliest one is over two years old.

Julie

[M. J. Young]

Tomas, I hope you'll take a look at my previous post to get a better handle on why we can't agree.

The general definition of railroading in the minds of most posters here seems to be "the referee took control of my character without my consent". You are arguing for a definition that says "the referee took control of my character, but I agreed to let him do it".

Since there is no agreement on which is the correct definition, there's no way to settle the good/bad argument, but to say that if it's the definition generally accepted by most players it's bad, and if it's your definition it's perfectly good.

I would prefer to call what you are calling "railroading" illusionist techniques. As long as the players still have control over what matters to the players, and the referee is only taking control of things over which the players do not have any particular interest (that is, they don't care that the referee controls those things), illusionist techniques are quite functional. When it rises to the level called illusionism, that means that the referee is in complete control of everything without the players' consent, and is using his superior power in the game to prevent them from realizing that nothing they do matters because he is now going to tell his story with their characters, their cooperation being immaterial to this.

My sons sometimes call my tuna noodle casserole "cat food"; but they love it (so do the cats). If we had a discussion about whether people like to eat cat food, and I contributed that in my house we eat cat food all the time, because we call our tuna noodle casserole cat food, I've not really contributed to the discussion. It doesn't matter whether we call that casserole cat food, or even whether our cats also like it; everyone else is talking about something different.

The current definition for railroading, as far as I can tell from multiple discussions here, goes something like this:

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 bolded section is the important part. Railroading is a "crime" at the level of Social Contract, as it pertains to Creative Agenda. Taking the jargon out, that means, "people hate getting their 'rights' of input taken away, although those 'rights' are wholly internal on their part."

That's the definition that seems to be in use here by all the participants other than you; that's why you're disagreeing with everyone on the fundamental question.

You've been pretty clear about your use of the term, that when you say "railroading" you mean referee control with the consent of the players; but you keep objecting that when other people say "railroading is bad" when they mean referee control without the consent of the players that it isn't bad if the players have consented to it. That's really the entire crux of this debate--if the referee takes control without consent of the players, that's bad; if the referee acts within the credibility ceded to him by the players, it's good. Whether railroading is good or bad depends on which of those you use for the definition, and most people are using the one you're not using.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

The general definition of railroading in the minds of most posters here seems to be "the referee took control of my character without my consent". You are arguing for a definition that says "the referee took control of my character, but I agreed to let him do it".

Quite correct.

My issue is that "illusionist techniques" is something I have never heard of, as most players. Most players have heard of "railroading" though, and equates it with "bad play". This often leads them to conclusions that are detrimental to the games they play, because fully acceptable railroading techniques are banned.

In my view there is a strong link between player expectation -> GM behaviour -> game potential. As roleplaying games is meant to be performed by amateurs; the players, I find it important to oppose any lax use of terms that muddle the terrain for them.

I believe "railroading" should be used as a positive term, pertaining to certain techniques of roleplaying games. The negative side of railroading is best explained under the label; "How to misuse railroading".

It is better to redefine this term, and work for the reform of it's use, than to use the more vague "illusionist techniques". I'm also strongly for a new focus on what is called the "social contract". Too much of the common content of this "contract" is dictated by historic accidents.

That's me; a revolutionary :)

[Tomas HVM]

Further reflection:

It may be that my position is conceived to be somewhat limiting. I choose my position out of necessity. I confess to be a firm believer in the necessity of focussing all design and theory-efforts at amateurs, while discussing roleplaying games. The reason being that the players are the vehicles of drama created in these games. In my view there is no way around the amateur player as the foundation of the roleplaying game. Design and theory should reflect this.

In my view roleplaying games is in a special position compared to other media, due to it's dependency on active and co-authoring amateurs, and these participants being the true audience of the media as well.

[contracycle]

It is better to redefine this term, and work for the reform of it's use, than to use the more vague "illusionist techniques". I'm also strongly for a new focus on what is called the "social contract". Too much of the common content of this "contract" is dictated by historic accidents.

I disagree.   I like illusionism by anology to stage magicians.  The audience agrees to submit to limited information in order to enjoy the illusion.  The illusionist does not make claims as to real magic powers, they claim only to ber illusionist.  This to me is an good analogy for "positive railroading" and I think the term conveys the right concepts.

[Tomas HVM]

I'd rather call it "steering techniques", if it comes to inventing a new term for it. It's all about steering the players/characters to facilitate a certain direction of play, or to focus on a specific dramatic theme.

It may be done bad, as well as every other tool. In my experience all effective tools of roleplaying games, may be used too little or too much, or misused in some other way. I have won public acclaim for the appliance of my stance in this issue. Every time I competed for "The Game Master Championship" at Arcon, the biggest gamefair in Scandinavia, I won using techniques including different kinds of railroading. I was voted Champion three years in a row, by players of all affiliations, and scored full house  every time, in the important category of "player involvement and interaction".

The problem with the existence of "railroading", as the term is commonly used today, is that it completely overshadows a whole range of effective tools. This has to be rectified. Too many players are lost in the totality of this term, understanding it to be some big-badness of roleplaying games, including all positive notions of it. Too many game masters are left with a stunted range of tools due to this.

You can not ignore the continual damage caused by such a broad misrepresentation of a central issue, linked to such a commonly used term. It is unrealistic to expect players to stop using the term, so we will have to instill it with some positive meaning, making it possible to argue the positive sides of railroading. Thus we may stop the effects of negative gaming experiences from spreading like cancer in our thinking, our theories, our design, and our gameplay.

As for "illusionism"; it is vague, a "strange" term to most players, and misrepresenting the issue. The techniques involved in railroading, is not linked to some illusion of players having a free choice. It may be done that way, yes, and mostly done bad. The bad use of it should not be the basis of it's understanding, not as is, nor in any new term on it.

Railroading as such, however, is linked to the ramifications of the player/character choices being tighter at some stages of the game. There is a great host of effective tools to be used for this, tools that enhance players engagement, their immersions in character, and their joint efforts to create a great drama.

I hope you see that this is a constructive way of addressing the issue.

[Henri]

MJ: Thanks for making such an excellent point about the use of terminology as illustrated by your cat food example.  I feel like a lot of discussion at the forge (and elsewhere!) is due to miscommunications because words have different meanings for different people.  Even when we define our terms up front, we have a hard time letting go of the connotations we attatch to words.  What may seem like a "natural" or "common sense" definition to one person may seem totally wrong to another.

As for this discussion, I think that since railroading has a strong negative connotation for most of us, it is a good idea to stick to Ron's definition of RailRoading specifically as the DYSFUNCTIONAL use illusionist techniques.  By this definition it makes no sense to say that railroading is good, since by definition it is dysfunctional.  I don't really care if we call the functional version of this "illusionist technique" or something new like "steering techniques," although since most of us at the forge are used to "illusionism" as a term we may as well stick with it.  Since by definition illusionism means "control of a player-character's decisions, or opportunities for decisions, by another person in any way which is in accord to the Social Contract for that group" there is nothing wrong with it.  No one is saying that there is.  

I think there is a strong general consensus here that good = functional = in accord with fun and the social contract of the group; and that bad = dysfunctional = breaking the social contract of the group.
To disagree with these equations is to say that your prefered way of playing is the "right" way and that it is inherently better than others, which I think is very much against the spirit of the forge.  Good and bad can ONLY be determined within a group's social contract.

That said, with these definitions of railroading and illusionism, there is no arguing that railroading is bad and that illusionism is good.  No one in this discussion has disagreed with the ideas of these statements.  The disagreement has been entirely over the definitions of these terms, not the ideas themselves.  There is nothing "revolutionary" about the statement "railroading is not always bad" because all it amounts to is a modification of the definition of railroading to include functional illusionist techniques, which no one claimed were bad in the first place.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Tomas:

The style of discourse at The Forge is cast largely in Ron's image, and Ron is an academic. Most of the rest of us aren't.

Academics are used to establishing specialized meanings for words, and adhering to the terminology established by their predecessors even if it doesn't seem (to them) like the best possible choice, because that's the style that they've found, over the course of centuries, to lead to the most productive discourse about abstractions. Because the style of communication here at the Forge is influenced by the Western European academic tradition as represented by Ron Edwards, Forgers do that too. It sometimes seems strange to outsiders, but it's how we do things, and it's proven useful to us, too (albeit not over the course of centuries).

Even if the Forge-standard definition of "railroading" seems somewhat counterintuitive to you, therefore, please see if you can bring yourself to accept it and move on. Arguing about what word to use isn't going to get us anywhere useful.

[M. J. Young]

Actually one of the advantages of illusionism as a term is that it doesn't have heavy negative connotations, but it does describe play that violates the social contract; the form of play in which players have consented to giving control to the referee is referred to as participationism (Mike Holmes). Both use illusionist techniques, that is, they use methods of negating the impact of player choices where player choices would derail desired outcomes or directions. However, there are many forms of play which use illusionist techniques. Ron's own notion of the moving clue is an application of illusionist technique used to prevent play from failing due to a player decision taking it in an unprofitable direction. (The moving clue works like this: the players need to know a specific piece of information in order to work out the secret of the game. Rather than place it with character A and hope that the player characters think to ask character A about this, the information is given to some character of whom the players do ask the right question, and that way the players are guaranteed to get the information regardless of who they ask. That's an illusionist technique.) Use such techniques so thoroughly that no player decision matters and you've got either illusionism (if the players don't know that their decisions don't matter) or participationism (if they've agreed to this mode of play).

Tomas, I can argue that the sorts of play commonly called Munchkin, Power Gamer, and Rules Lawyer are positive forms of play within the right context. I think they can in fact be so. However, these labels have negative connotations throughout the role playing game world, as far as I'm aware (well, except among a few hard-core gamists, who can admire someone with these skills--Did you see how Bob called the referee on that? Man, I thought our goose was cooked, but he pulled that rule out of nowhere, and man, did that save us.). If I'm going to try to change perception of the words, I've got an uphill battle. If I could get everyone at The Forge, Gaming Outpost, RPGnet, and ENWorld to agree that these were terms that described a positive and acceptable play style (which I could not do), that would be a drop in the bucket in terms of the players out there. As you observe, the majority of players are amateurs. Your efforts to convert their understanding of "railroading" into a positive idea is going to require more clout than Gary Gygax and Peter Adkison together have in this hobby.

Of course, tilt at windmills if you like; maybe you'll manage to slay a giant.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

Tomas, I can argue that the sorts of play commonly called Munchkin, Power Gamer, and Rules Lawyer are positive forms of play within the right context.

I have argued more times than not, the exclusion of certain terms from discussions of roleplaying games, they being of no value to the debate, nor the understanding of RPGs.

But I strive to see the qualities inherent in a term, and the consequence of replacing it (including the qualities of new terms to be), before I decide on casting it away or not. I do this in every single instance, and believe in no general priciple stating that all terms should be taken as positive.

Your argument is void. It don't touch upon the issue at hand; "railroading" being a fully viable term, substantial and to the point, easily transported into the realm of positive understanding, and far better than "illusionist techniques".

[Eero Tuovinen]

Your argument is void. It don't touch upon the issue at hand; "railroading" being a fully viable term, substantial and to the point, easily transported into the realm of positive understanding, and far better than "illusionist techniques".

I for one understand what you are striving for, and can easily support the sentiment. Good work communicating clearly and without aggravation.

However, I simply disagree on aesthetic grounds with your opinion in this specific instance. For me, and for Forge regulars, "illusionist technique" is a good, common and understandable term, while "railroading" is something we have to ascertain the meaning of. Of course this is because we are used to the word, but so what?

The matter may or may not be different in different places and at different times. Maybe railroading is the better word to use when in Oslo, but not when in Forge? It all depends on the factors you have correctly listed, like ease of understanding, exactness of definition and usability in relation to the problem at hand.

Anyway, I don't see whether this discussion can be fruitfully continued, as it pertains largely to matters of opinion. We could in theory conduct polls amongst hobbyists to find out which is the better term, but what use would that be? You'd still have to choose your words based on who you are talking to, regardless of which is the more popular term world-wide.

Much better to take universal terminology on as a separate project (you could conduct it in here, though). Let Forgers use the most convenient terminology for them, and device a different lexicon for people at large. Who knows, maybe some parts of Forge language will be suitable for general use?

[clehrich]

I am confused about this, because long before I came to the Forge I encountered the term "railroading" constantly in the context of RPG's.  It was always used negatively; it didn't simply mean what here is called Illusionism, but a way of forcing PC's to follow predetermined tracks -- rather like cars following railroad tracks.  The best I can say about railroading is that if you're going to do it, it had better be the Orient Express, because exploration of anything is heavily constrained if you can't decide what route you will take.  

What's the point of changing this to a new term?  Perhaps the term means little to you, but it means a lot to a lot of gamers, many of them not at the Forge.  And to propose "steering" as an alternative seems doubly silly: you aren't even changing the metaphor, except to make it shakier -- the point of railroading is that all the steering is done by the GM, who lays down the tracks.  Why is this harder to follow -- given that, for example, there's no point in getting on a train to Calais and hijacking it to take you to Cuba -- than steering, which presumably involves some control over the direction?  The nice thing about riding a railroad is that you don't have to steer.  That's the point of the metaphor.

Aren't we just having an aesthetic debate about which metaphors and terms you happen to prefer, as against everyone else around here?  Fine, I guess, but you have to convince me that you're right, not just carp about how some terms bug you.

[Callan S.]

My personal, quick summery of railroading runs like this (and reflects previous posts)

Play is always railroaded. Play in a simple fantasy setting with a moon, and if the GM doesn't provide a rocket ship to get there, he's railroaded you away from exploration of the moon.

But generally this is actually agreed to. They want their noses in a dungeon perhaps, and never even think about the moon.

Okay, say they are in that dungeon. They find that each room in it has one entrance and one exit, and each entrance closes as they enter a new room.

Now, one group begins to growl and raise fists. But a second group playing the same dungeon latter are jolly and happy.

Why? Because just as much as the first group didn't get angry when they werent provided a path to the moon, the second group doesn't mind that they are provided no extra path options.

Imagine two parallel lines, outside of which no play exists. The first group likes them to be wide apart but not so apart they must enclude moon travel. The second does not mind if the two lines almost meet (by almost, I mean they probably still like to decide where they walk in each room).

However, when these 'rail' lines move closer to each other than agreed upon, it's a real problem as its a social contract breach and is called railroading. However, while they're at the agreed positions or wider, although play is still within two rails, it isn't called railroading (probably someone can think of a better term). However, as you can see with the above example, one mans railroading is another mans 'just fine'.

On a side note, this is why illusionism without consent really worries me. Yes, it may work. You may have happy players. But that's because their not aware the agreement was broken, not because you kept to the agreement and produced a good game because of it.

Though on the flip side, I think that perhaps illusionism is perhaps very ironic. For example, say a player can go east or west, but the GM will make him end up at a town regardless. It sounds like no choice, but personally I see the player handed director stance is a velvet basket. It's the play who is going to decide, east or west, where this town ends up existing. His choice does matter to a degree, perhaps a very strong degree.

[Tomas HVM]

There is nothing "revolutionary" about the statement "railroading is not always bad" because all it amounts to is a modification of the definition of railroading to include functional illusionist techniques, which no one claimed were bad in the first place.

Most players consider railroading to be bad, to the degree that many of them are shy of most techniques included in what you call "illusionist techniques". So your claim that "no one claimed [illusionist techniques] were bad" is not true. A lot of players claim exactly that! They consider it "railroading", and "railroading" is BIGBAD! That is one of my main points in making this discussion. You may call me softhearted, but I actually care for those players not illuminated enough to see behind the great shadow of RAILROADING!!!

And you claim that since railroading has negative connotations to most of us, we may as well keep it that way. What a tragic argument!

I think that since railroading has a strong negative connotation for most of us, it is a good idea to stick to Ron's definition of RailRoading, specifically as the DYSFUNCTIONAL use of illusionist techniques.  By this definition it makes no sense to say that railroading is good, since by definition it is dysfunctional.

Ron Edwards definition of "railroading": Railroading is the removal of character decision-making from the player.

This definition is false. It reflects only the commonly misconception of railroading, not the actual act or effect of railroading. My investigations of the issue has shown that the range of techniques which is commonly referred to as "railroading", is quite broad. Railroading is actually understood to be a broad set of techniques used by the game master (mainly). The actual content of this term is much broader than the "definition" served by Ron. His definition is in fact nothing more than a statement. It is tainted with the negativism surrounding this issue, presenting the act of railroading as something limiting the players engagement in play. In fact it is mostly used to the opposite effect; to enhance player engagement, when used properly.

A neutral or positive definition would read more like this: Railroading is the use of techniques to focus the range of possible character-choices. This reflects the actual content of this term, not the somewhat foggy ideas of "it" being bad or limiting for play.

The negative aura surrounding railroading as a term, is based on negative use of some of these techniques. Such use is a common practise amongst newbie game masters, due to their nervousness with the unpredictable nature of roleplaying games. They tend to steer play in what they think is "subtle" ways, but still being spotted by the players. The players feels constrained by the game masters rigid adherence to the scenario at hand, and his inability to make their desicions count. As a consequence these techniques (and most similar techniques) is considered to be juvenile and bad. A lot of game masters and players have these experiences, partly due to the lack of coherent advise in the games they use. Thus the idea of railroading being bad has been allowed to fester.

... by definition illusionism means "control of a player-character's decisions, or opportunities for decisions, by another person in any way which is in accord to the Social Contract for that group".

This definition is similar to the one I propose for railroading. Similar, that is. However; the "social contract" enters into it only on a general level. There are no techniques of roleplaying games that is not subject to the agreement of the players, both in use and effect, so the "social contract" should not be part of this definition. To make it so muddles the issue, making it somewhat "conspicious".

If you want to make new terms...
If you want to create definitions to be adhered to in discussions and thinking on roleplaying games...
- Please observe that such definitions should be strictly neutral, if not the issue at hand is proven to be of a negative nature. Otherwise you may stop future players from discovering great avenues of play.

In this case, the term "railroading" has not been thoroughly investigated by the people "defining" it. Neither by the people offering new terms to replace it. The arguments presented on it here, has all been focused on the misconceptions linked to the term. The "material" content of the term makes it evident that railroading is much better suited to describe the issue at hand. It is in fact doing this already, referring to the use of techniques to focus the range of possible character-choices, even though the use of such techniques is laden with negative connotations. In some instances it is wrong to give up a term to such misconceptions. This is one such instance.

[Valamir]

Tomas.

Your posts have the tone of an increasingly despirate person who has made an entirely unsupportable statement and now is unwilling to concede that they've made a grievious error, so you keep hammering the same things over and over in the hopes that repetition will make it stick.

Frankly.  You are wrong.  Your point about rail roading is wrong.

Your attempt to define a "neutral" definition for rail roading is nonsensical.

Railroading is the use of techniques to focus the range of possible character-choices

Not only is this not the use the word has ever had anywhere outside perhaps of you use of it.  It doesn't stand to scrutiny.

A rail road is a set of tracks.  A train on the tracks goes in 1 direction...whereever the tracks lead it.  There may be switches in the line leading to other tracks, but the tracks are already laid, the destinations are already known, the schedule is already written, and the passengers are just along for the ride.

That is what a rail road is.  The GM's pre planned plot is the tracks, his preplanned encounters are the destinations, his sense of pacing is the arrival schedule.  Switches are places where he builds in "if - then" choices, but regardless, the choices are illusionary because they still lead to tracks he's laid and destinations he's scripted, he's just included multiple possible routes through his story.  That story is the train and the players are the passengers along for the ride.

THAT is what railroading is.  THAT is what it has always been.  


"Rail Roaded" like "Ram Rodded" DOES have negative connotations.  Its supposed to.  It does in the common parlance of non gaming as well.  Consider this dictionary definition of Railroaded:

To rush or push (something) through quickly in order to prevent careful consideration and possible criticism or obstruction: railroad a special-interest bill through Congress.

To convict (an accused person) without a fair trial or on trumped-up charges.

Perhaps the word does not carry the same negative connotations in Norwegian, but in English "being railroaded" is a bad thing.  



You point to positive aspects of "railroading done right".  Absolutely.  Such techniques are not new to us.  We've been discussing and using them for years.  You're hardly introducing a new concept here.

We call those techniques "Illusionism".

You don't like that term.  Fine.  Perhaps in Norway you don't have a tradition of flamboyant stage magicians called "illusionists" who perform various feats that appear magical even though they all involve deception.  

That tradition, as has been explained to you already, is where the term comes from.  Perhaps you don't like it because it emphasises deception, but that's you're own issue with the word.  Audiences enjoy magic shows even though they know full well they're being deceived.  Similarly players can enjoy Illusionism, even though they are aware of the deception.  Its not like GMs are the only players to read all of those "tips on how to GM" books which outline in plain verbage how to deceive the players.


This level of play, where the players are aware of and accepting of the illusion is called "participation". That's where the enjoyable aspects of being along for the ride witnessing the GMs wonderful story lies in our definitions.


In conclusion, Tomas.  You've offered nothing new that we do not already fully understand and have fully accounted for.  You don't like the words we've chosen to label them with.  Fine, I suspect that is because of the difference in connotation across languages and cultures.

But you've offered absolutely no rationale for your definitions other than some notion that ours are "damaging" (baloney) and that yours are geared towards "amateurs" (whatever that means)

In short.  Get over it.