How to avoid Railroading!

[Michael Bjorklund]

Hi!
This is the first time I am actively participating in this great forum, which I have only recently discovered. So your comments will be welcome:-)

The following on railroading and the dangers of railroading was initiated through
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7563&highlight
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:27 pm    Post subject: Well of Souls 1; Peter Nordstrand.


************ From Well of Souls 1 ***********
"
Quote start:
If you want to apply pressure, increase the amount of humiliation or debasement he suffers, most importantly in front of Josette, perhaps with her catching a fair amount of backlash as well. To really up the drama, have her be totally resentful of Sir N, perhaps for the having her sent away on top of all the stuff going on right at that moment.

If you totally trash Sir N's reputation, and even go as far as destroying his position, suddenly, stuff like a Secret Plan become much, much more appealing. You have to be headed towards rock bottom for the dark hand of temptation to mean anything.


And how do you propose I do this without railroading? Two ways comes to mind:

1. Establish *before actual play* how darn humiliated Sir N is. This requires the players acceptance (which probably wouldn't be hard to get ... he seems to want exactly that).

2. Ignore that particular Bang for the time being. Instead follow the general principles of a) apply pressure everywhere, and try to make everyone (NPCs as well as player heroes) desperate, and b) empower the player by giving him info. The result will quite possibly be a pretty powerful Bang. ... Hm, I like this better.


****** Next quote:

Chris, I can put Sir N in a tight spot. I can make everybody around him desperate. I can do my best to make him desperate. I can have NPCs (deliberately or as a consequence of other actions) try to humiliate Sir N or put him in a position where he is likely to get humiliated. No problemo.

However, if I decide that Sir N *must* be humiliated, I am railroading. Why? Because that is the same as protecting a predetermined plot. Your advice is great, but if done right I can never be certain that Sir N is humiliated. The only way I could possibly ensure his humiliation is by making decisions for the player that rightly belongs to him, and him only.

************* Quote end! **********
(check Well of Souls 1 for the entire thread!)

The main question in this specific discussion is whether the GM can or should allow Sir N to be railroaded or not in order to reach a certain point campaign-wise, which would be useful for further storytelling. However, is railroading to reach a certain storytelling point in this specific case or generally all necessary? Or even acceptable in a storytelling or role-playing environment?

Personally, I strongly believe that purposeful and deliberate as well as accidental railroading must be avoided at any cost and at all times. By removing the free will of the players, the roleplaying element becomes restricted and may cause the players to lose interest in the campaign world.

If the GM feels it absolutely necessary for the storytelling and story-development that the PC's reach a certain point or does something specific there are other ways than railroading.

Below I will try to pinpoint some, but by all means not all, of these essential points that are necessary to keep in mind when the GM is generating his/her world and scenarioes if railroading is to be avoided.

First we must define the traditional standard premises for most gaming worlds:
1. When the gaming world is created, there will be a virtually unlimited number of potential plots and plot-lines even if they are not pre-planned. Any interaction with an NPC will for instance open up for a potential new plot.
2. There will at any given time be different races/nations/groups with different goals, all not involved with the main plot and quite possibly left unused or with little detail only by the GM. Each of these races/nations/groups will have independent goals that all can open up for new potential plots.
3. Even if there is an epic main plot these other plot-lines will be latent and possible for the players to explore. Likewise, these sub-plots may have an influence on the gaming world if the GM uses them actively.
4. Most given gaming worlds are dynamic. I.e. all the potential plots will be active in the background whether the players interfere or not.
5. Whether these unused plotlines are used or not they have the potential to influence the gaming environment when things change in these areas. Mostly, though, they will just be there, adding flavour to the gaming world, unless they directly have an influence on the players' plot/area.

Secondly we must define the traditional standard premises for the specific session/campaign/plot (whether bought or self-created):
1. When the GM is planning a gaming session he/she usually has some ideas what he/she wants to do and probably also what the players want to do - the latter's ideas may or may not be incorporated into any given game plot or sub-plot.
2. There will be any number of NPC's involved in any given plot. Some of these will be planned non-expendable VIP's, while others will be expendable. There usually will be only one or just a few main Big Baddies, whom the GM plans to use as main protagonist for a long time.
3. There will be any number of locations with treasure, NPC's, information, friends, etc. Some will be known while others will be explored as the game progresses.
4. Usually the GM will focus on the one main plot, be that epic or localised.
5. Usually the GM has a plan that he/she follows and a plan that he/she wants the players to follow.  

Considerations on how to avoid railroading:
1. The most important thing a GM must do is to take a step back from his/her main plot. This will give the GM the necessary overview of the gaming environment to allow him/her to accept that the PC's do not do the main plot, and thus that the GM will avoid railroading the players.
2. The gaming world should be considered a palette of possible GM plots, a candy shop for the players where they can do what they like, and a dynamic
3. Any action will have consequences that are logical and in line with the gaming world. I.e. the slaughter of a village by PC's WILL lead to police investigation, which in turn MAY lead to PC pursecution IF clues to the culprits can be found.
4. Giving up the control of the plot is of main importance if railroading is to be avoided.
5. When one NPC dies he/she can always be replaced by someone else. This also true for the Big Baddie. Thus, the GM should not protect the Big Baddie completely - while making it difficult to get to him/her, it shouldn't be totally impossible.
6. Try to consider all plausible player actions and routes and try to prepare for that.
7. GM familiarity with his/her world is essential in order to be prepared to allowing the PC's to do whatever they like to do
8. The GM should always be prepared to accept that the players are NOT going the way that the GM has planned/prepared for them.
9. By doing so, the GM is also prepared to accept any course of action that goes beyond anything that he/she has contemplated. In other words: The important thing here is not that the players do what the GM wants them to do, but that the GM knows his/her world well enough to allow the players to do what THEY want to do.
10. This also means that the GM must be ready to ad-lib on the fly, rather than running the planned action. What are the consequences of this acceptance of players ignoring presented plots?  
11. Thus, the GM (and the players) must decide, before playing, what kind of world they are going to use for their gaming. Will they want an epic tale like Lord of the Rings, or will they prefer to play a more localised game?
12. Also, one must realise that when the GM presents plot opportunities and accepts that they are not always used, the presented plot options are still active within the world environment. If the players ignores the plot, this INACTION will indeed still have an effect on the gaming world, as would the active action/intervention. So, for instance, if they ignore the plot to assassinate the king and place his eveil twin on the throne, then the plot may succeed and the gaming environment, which the players are used to, will change accordingly.
13. The epic tale can easily lead to some railroading, since the GM knows what the PCs are going to do. However, if they suddenly tire of following the epic quest, this must also be accepted by the GM and the gaming world. The GM must then decide what consequences this 'failure to complete the quest' will have on the gaming world and take proper actions. But it is difficult to force the players to do an epic quest against their wishes.
14. Because the important thing is not that the players do what the GM wants them to do, but that the GM knows his/her world well enough to allow the players to do what THEY want to do.

Therefore, Sir N in the quote from Well of Souls 1 above may be humiliated by the NPC action. However, Sir N and the other PC's ought to have an opportunity to avoid this humiliation and or to counter the plot before it happens. If they fail, then Sir N will be humiliated and they have to face the consequences.  In this way Sir N can be humiliated without railroading the player.

This is just one way to avoid railroading - there are probably many other ways to avoid railroading.

Your comments are most welcome!

_________________
There is no such thing as true objectivity.
- likewise, there is no such thing as one true way to game:-)

[Bankuei]

Hi Michael,

I think I may have miscommunicated my idea in the Well of Souls post, in that I failed to add the usual Narrativist disclaimer, "If the situation is appropriate, without forcing player decisions, etc."  The key point is to see  themes and areas which in which you can apply pressure to make things exciting, without forcing nor predicting any particular response on the part of the player.

Many of your concerns regarding railroading disappear completely when the GM starts running with no plot at all.  The preparations that you see Peter going through are possible but not guaranteed events, called Bangs.  You'll also want to note that while the event may or may not happen, the player's reaction to it, is completely open and not predicted on the part of the GM.  

You'll also find that there has been a LOT of discussion on these boards, with a LOT of useful techniques for non-railroaded play.  For many of us, it has become the standard mode of play.  You may want to look into some of these threads for reference:

Bangs: http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1047

Scene framing: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6689

Relationships Maps:  http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=831
http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=224

Kickers: http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1359

You may also wish to search using any of those terms above as well for further research.  Also, take a very close look at Narrativism in Ron's GNS essay.  While you can play non-railroaded games in any of the 3 modes, you CANNOT railroad and have Narrativism happening.

Finally, for even further reference, you will want to check out the original Well of Souls thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6696

Chris
(edited links)

[Michael Bjorklund]

Hiya Chris,
Thanks a lot. Will do.
Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I can only refer you to my response in that same thread.

Also, the definition of Railroading is often problematic. To see a discussion on that topic, see this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4405

FWIW, there was a period where all my play looked very much like what you propose. I would have literally 50 or so plots just hanging out waiting to go. But even by some definitions of raliroading, that method still counts. All depends on who controls what.

Mike

[Michael Bjorklund]

Thanks for the thread and comments Mike,

I have a lot of comments, but am rather hung up at the moment. Will be back asap.

However, briefly, you ask what railraoding actually is. Interesting question! Traditionally in roleplaying groups (equivalent of a project group), the GM (=the project leader) defines the world and game setting (=the project book/script), with the players (=project workers) 'working' their  way through various plots and situations.  

Now, the traditional project organisation (not roleplaying) works by the script, except where they have turned modern and become more pro-active, by which I mean that the script is more a general directive froim which to explore the potentials in the situation rather than the traditional by-the-book style.

When this is compared to the roleplaying situation, we have a typical pro-active project: There is some kind of general idea (= the world frame and whatever plots the GM has presented) and a group of players who are there for the fun and who mostly drags the plot one way or the other in a constant communication and interaction with themselves and the GM and the world frame. This expands the initial general idea and the end product becomes a highly entertaining and successful experience for everybody involved (we are talking the theoretical ideal roleplaying group here).

Well, the GM has defined the world, and thus to some degree already railroaded everybody. The social contract includes that everybody agrees to play within this gaming environment, which is dynamic IF the players and the GM are pro-actively working together for the common fun.

However, if the GM tries to force the players to do something, like I did in my most spectacularly failed attempt at roleplaying (I tried to have players play the characters from the Dragonlance books, rather than allow them to explore the world, their own characters or the gaming environment, which meant that the campaign died very quickly! terrible! terrible!!), then it is railroading.

Thus, if players do not like the way a plot is going, but am unable to leave it because the GM forces them to stick to the plot (like in the excellent Knights of the Dinner Table, which you so brilliantly quote), this is railroading. If the players accept the plot and follows it of their own free will, then it is not.

Therefore the question whether it is railroading or not becomes the ability of the GM to allow players to explore and influence the gaming environment.  

At the moment I am trying to test the feasibility to have the players build some scene frames up from which I can take the plot  and situation. Obviously they know the world quite well, so their ideas will match the world frame. I'll come back to this later when i know if it works or not.

Sleep well to all:-)
Mike

[Bankuei]

Hi Mike,

At the moment I am trying to test the feasibility to have the players build some scene frames up from which I can take the plot and situation. Obviously they know the world quite well, so their ideas will match the world frame. I'll come back to this later when i know if it works or not.

This has been successfully implemented in several games.  Trollbabe's scene request is probably the most notable, although Universalis, Sorcerer's Kickers, and transitioning scenes from Monologues of Victory from the Pool all have this to one degree or another.

Chris

[Michael Bjorklund]

Excellent!

[Mike Holmes]

Traditional is also contentious here, but we'll go with your ideas for the purposes of the discussion.

Well, the GM has defined the world, and thus to some degree already railroaded everybody. The social contract includes that everybody agrees to play within this gaming environment, which is dynamic IF the players and the GM are pro-actively working together for the common fun.

See, that's what the thread about Railroading was talking about. If you mean that GM introductions to the world are things which cannot be changed by the player, then you're saying that in "traditional" games, all GM participation is Railroading. Which isn't very useful. Because as we see above, this sort of Railroading doesn't bug the players in the right sort of social contract. Given the negative connotations of the term, it doesn't make sense to use Railroading in this fashion. It must mean the GM use of authority to create things in a way that violates the Social Contract.

Thus, if players do not like the way a plot is going, but am unable to leave it because the GM forces them to stick to the plot (like in the excellent Knights of the Dinner Table, which you so brilliantly quote), this is railroading. If the players accept the plot and follows it of their own free will, then it is not.

This, too is problematic. Because it assumes the "Traditional" mode. Some players don't want to have to follow any plot that originates pre-play with GM ideas. Around here this is called Narrativist play.

Therefore the question whether it is railroading or not becomes the ability of the GM to allow players to explore and influence the gaming environment.

Again, you assume your own preferences are held by all players. What if the players want the GM to decide the plot? And want to just follow it out to it's conclusion? This is a common and perfectly workable play style as well.

Basically, what I keep trying to say is that it's Railroading, if and when, the GM makes decisions for the players that they want to make. If they want to make all the decisions, then any GM interference is Railroading. If they just want to hear a story be told to them, then no amount of GM decision making is Railroading.

The key to avoiding Railroading is understanding what the players want to control. One way to find out what the players like to control is to ask them. This isn't as effective as it sounds, however, because often players don't understand the issues of control. They say, I want to control my character, and the GM controls the world. Well, the problem with this traditional split is that there are fine points about when one conflicts with the other. In fact, a typical problem is exactly the one that you're noting.

Another way to do this is to select a game to play, because often the game will say quite a bit about what the players can control. For example, in a game I co-authored, Universalis, there is no GM because the players control absolutely everything. Call of Cthulhu, OTOH, has a tradition of having players go through very linear and pre-plotted scenarios. And there are players who like both these modes, and everything in-between. Players who know and like a particular game's standard can assure themselves of the "right" level of Control simply by playing that game.

In any case, a lot of the theory on this site is all about what Control means, and in what myriad ways players want to have it. I suggest that understanding this theory goes a long way to understanding the whole Railroading phenomenon.

Given that the Traditional mode of play is only one of many, the sort of play that you're describing has been done a lot before. While not the most common mode, as mentioned, you'll even find that there are lots of games that cater to these other modes of play.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I was under the impression that the Is 'railroading' a useful term? thread covered most of these issues without much controversy.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

It does. I just wanted to give Mike here an explanation in the context of his arguments. It would have been easier to just post another link... ;-)

Mike

[Michael Bjorklund]

Hmm ... thanks for the context and comments!

My goal with this thread was not really to discuss the terminology or semantics, but to discuss ways to avoid 'railroading', i.e. provide some tools to aid the GM's creative work.

The formal definition of 'railroading' is:
[(n.) The construction of a railroad; the business of managing or operating a railroad.]

For the purpose of this discussion, I would be happy to use the term as:
[Forcing the players to follow the plot in one direction dictated by the GM without allowing the players the option to explore beyond the plot.]

This allows for GM participation in one way or another, which is good since the game consists of a dialogue between players and the GM.

"Again, you assume your own preferences are held by all players. "
Nope - of course my views are not the only way to view the world - check my epitaph (There is no such thing as true objectivity) if you're in  doubt:-)

More later!

All the best & keep up the good work:-)
Mike

Edited by adding: "i.e. provide some tools to aid the GM's creative work."

[Mike Holmes]

For the purpose of this discussion, I would be happy to use the term as:
[Forcing the players to follow the plot in one direction dictated by the GM without allowing the players the option to explore beyond the plot.]

Cool.

What do you think about the idea of not having a plot at all?

Mike

[Michael Bjorklund]

For the purpose of this discussion, I would be happy to use the term as:
[Forcing the players to follow the plot in one direction dictated by the GM without allowing the players the option to explore beyond the plot.]

Cool.

What do you think about the idea of not having a plot at all?

Interesting question!

No problem, I guess, IF we assume that the players and the GM have decided on this approach fromt the outset (if the players are expecting a plot and there is nothing, then it may be somewhat strange for all the participants?!).  

This gaming world environment (guess that would be GWE? Well, it is from now on!) would create a totally open as well as totally open-ended. Plots would be derived and developed in pro-active communication between players and GM during play, probably on-the-fly.

As with Universalis (?? sorry if this is a wrong reference), it may not even be necessary to know anything about the GWE before the game starts.

However, if the above plot-free situation was to take place in either an already established and previously used GWE or a GWE that was pre-definded by the GM, then the GM would have to know his/her GWE pretty well to enable the players to explore, though the players would still have to provide loads of input to NPC's, etc. Hmm ... is this really a different approach from the Universalis method?

Anyway, plots would naturally develop as the players are interacting with the GWE, whether it was pre-defined or created on-the-fly or decided through a brainstorming/Universalis method. It is the actual interaction between players, GM and GWE (which may be considered a dynamic entity in it's own right in this connection?), which creates the fundament for 'plots', with 'plots' being anything that gives substance to the story/story-telling.

Hope this gives you an idea about my thoughts on your question?

I'm off to bed now, so sleep tight and have sweet dreams about saving dragons in distress and defeating the cruel damsels .. errrr :-)

All the best
Mike

[Michael Bjorklund]

A few comments to the 'no plot' gaming - hopefully I am not reinventing the deep saucer?!

The way I think the act of playing RPG's best can be described is as a theatre act, or alternatively a film or a TV show. The difference is that the plot develops on-the-fly and there are no pre-written lines or even a definate script.  

I would guess that in traditional roleplaying there have been some scenarios, either bought or home-made, which have formed the basis for the role playing sessions. The GWE (Gaming World Environment) nevertheless becomes dynamic, since the players influence how the world looks like.

If there is 'no plot' from the outset we remove the directing from the GM and allow the players to be the driving force (even more than before) - at least if I have understood some of the very great ideas in here correctly ... please correct me if I am wrong!  Nevertheless the GM/GWE reacts to the players actions and thus some of the directing still is in the court of the GM, unless the players themselves also play the NPCs.

In other words, since players will always try to influence their GWE I don't believe that a GWE can exist without a plot ever appearing, i.e. the plot will be a result of player actions even if a 'no plot from the outset' GWE has been etsablished. Please correct me if I am wrong!

To make sure there are no misunderstandings, I should stress that all the above views from me are simply that, i.e. my views. Thus, they are not the only truth! Also please forgive me if the above has been covered in another thread, which I may have missed.

All the best
Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Your observations a pretty astute, IMO, and match those of many here.

If there is 'no plot' from the outset we remove the directing from the GM and allow the players to be the driving force (even more than before) - at least if I have understood some of the very great ideas in here correctly ... please correct me if I am wrong! Nevertheless the GM/GWE reacts to the players actions and thus some of the directing still is in the court of the GM, unless the players themselves also play the NPCs.

This is what's called Narrativism here. When the players take control of the situation to the extent that they create a plot - as long as plot means story with theme.

Now, one can imagine a complete simulation. Wherin the players merely have the characters do "what the characters would do". And the GM only responds with his authority as the motive force behind the world, and has it do "what the world would do". In this theoretical game, Players playing competely Simulationist, and the GM responding with what we term Open play, what you'd get is not really what could be legitamately termed a plot, but something more like real life. Just a series of events.

Now, things can be engineered so that the events that occur must be out of the ordinary. Wandering monster tables can be consulted as appropriate to see if the characters are acosted by beasties. So the characters in these theoretical games don't live "normal" lives. But they are something like a simulation of what these character's lives are like.

Thing is, that eventually, something is going to come along that has a little more "plot" potential. As soon as the GM or players start chasing that down, the game becomes less a simulation, and more about pursuing themes. This is a shift towards Narrativism. More pronounced Narrativism involves players accepting the idea that they can be more active promoters of the plot - more correctly in creating themes.

Anyhow, these are all actually common forms of play to some extent. That is you see these modes given more or less use in most play (and the third element which is challenge).

Part of the general theory around here (well, a part that I promote) is that having a well defined mechanism for promoting some particular mix of these modes is important, as then the players and GM will never get confused about what they are supposed to control, and what they can expect to leave in another participant's hands. In that way can Railroading best be avoided.

BTW, Some players will "drift" a system, and use it in a way not intended by the designer. This is fine, as long as, again, everyone is still on the same sheet of music with what is, essentially, a new system.

Mike