Simple (highly emotionally charged, hot button issue, loaded) question:

Given Illusionism terminology, what is Railroading?

For the sake of argument, we'll assume that the Railroading in question is about 'story conscious' gaming.

Is it "With Use of Force, Overt, Flexible, Consensual?"

Because when you see the results of your characters' decisions resulting in what the gamemaster wanted, you've been Railroaded?

Is it "With Use of Force, Covert, not Flexible, Consensual?"

Because it has to go a certain way, it goes right down 'the Railroad?'

Is it "With Use of Force, Covert, Flexible, Non-Consensual?"

Because you don't have a choice 'where the Railroad leads?'

Or maybe it isn't that pervasive. Could it be Railroading only when the use of Force is Non-Consensual, no matter what?

Perhaps its 'very common.' Is any use of Force to be considered Railroading?

Is there some variable not included in Illusionism's four, that flags play as Railroading. I'm not sure, I need to collect opinions and watch some discussion.

What do you think?

Fang Langford

Edited to thank Emily for the link I forgot. Thanks!

Here's a link to the thread with the new terminology (Force, Covert etc.):
Illusionism: a new look and a new approach

I believe it's a Knights of the Dinner table issue that illustrated Railroading for me: The players try this and try that and keep ending up going the same way no matter what they do. They eventually get to see the map the gm is using and it consist of a single road down the middle, with the rest of the territory blacked out/ie non-existant. This would be Force, Covert, Non-Flexible, Non-Consensual, and as such is an extreme case. And I've never actually experience this kind of play myself.

Non-consensual play would seem to be railroading automatically.

As you said, Railroading is a hot-button term, that probably has as many meanings to people as "immersion" does. How it's done would vary depending on gm preference.

--Emily Care

First, obviously this term has been forged by common usage. As such, I'm going to try to analyze it in terms of such usage. Then I'll give my own opinion the subject.

There seem to be three meanings of the term. They are all pejorative.

The first, and braodest, is applied by people who believe that any case of strong GM control is railroading. These people would apply the term 'Railroading' to any fairly Forceful GM play. Yeah, any of it. I would say to such a person that this only represented their personal preferences, but I can see how it applies thematically. I would only accept this as the definition, however, if we were able to relieve the term of it's automatically pejorative nature. Which I think can't happen. As such, I'd say that we should try to refrain from such broad use.

The second form is to say that Inflexible, Forceful play is Railroading. That when the GM has control, and is driving towards some particular goal, that this is railroading. I'd be a bit more likely to see this as a definition, though I still think it's a bad idea to refer to so broad a category in such a pejorative manner. Many still find these styles functional.

The third, and narrowest, refers to Forceful, Non-Consensual play styles. As this is usually dysfunctional, I can see using railroading as a term here here, perhaps, because of that fact.

Still, I'd personally like to constrain it even further to the more obviously dysfunctional styles like Force, Inflexible, Overt, Non-Consensual ("this happens despite whatever your character's do, and you will like it!"). Or even drop it from the lexicon.

The problem is that people will still continue to use the term. In general use, I think we can just assume that it stands for some subset of Forceful play that the user does not like.

Mike

I agree with Mike's last definition.

The key for me is Overt. If the players never know for sure, I'm not sure it can be said to be "railroading" -- i.e. there's "reasonable doubt."

The key is the standard of evidence that is required ("shadow of a doubt", "reasonable doubt", "GM confession?"). If I find the smoking gun of the map with one road, that's clear. If the GM has a "thug in an alley" weirdly beat up my super-hero for no clear reason, I may claim unfair GM intervention.

That's also the key (for me): the charge is that the GM is somehow "breaking the rules."

-Marco

Marco wrote:
That's also the key (for me): the charge is that the GM is somehow "breaking the rules."

Mike Holmes wrote: Railroading is the GM using Force to control play on some level that's been assumed to be uncontrolled in the social contract.

Hi there,

Great thread. Thanks, Fang, for starting it, and to everyone so far.

As it happens, I think Mike's breakdown (with Emily's as a specifier) is a good basis for arriving at a pretty good definition for railroading.

How's this: the GM exerts Force in such a way that breaks the Social Contract. I strongly recommend that people review my definition that has acquired the name "Force" - it means something much more specific than mere GM "input" (which when all is said and done is a form of plain old player input). The Force in question may directly affect a player-character's actions ("You fall in love with the princess") or it may operate on the player-character's environment ("The gun jams"). In all cases of railroading, the difference between GM agenda and player input/authority is thrown into high relief (sooner or later) with the advantage going to the GM.

It's still primarily a Social Contract issue. To be railroading, such an act has to be unwelcome. However, I think the issue of the player's perception of the event at that very moment is not quite as important as I used to. I think that the Social Contract key is that the player dislikes the act whenever it becomes apparent, which may be completely out of game or perhaps it's in-game four sessions later.

Still musing on it all, though. Thanks again, folks.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: How's this: the GM exerts Force in such a way that breaks the Social Contract.

Ron Edwards wrote: How's this: the GM exerts Force in such a way that breaks the Social Contract.

Hi Christoffer,

That's a good question, and it's a relevant concern - it dovetails as well with some of Gareth's points in recent threads about the attractions of a Social Contract with high GM Force.

However, I recommend that everyone review what I originally presented as "GM-oomph" and which has been provisionally dubbed "Force." It is specifically about player-character decisions and actions being affected directly by the GM.

Also, I think this query would benefit greatly by an example, before we all interpret it variously and start debating at cross-purposes. Can you provide one? A real one, naming the game in question and describing both real-people statements and in-game events?

Best,
Ron

Remember, Christoffer, that Flexible use of Force means simply that the GM is using his ability to "Make Story" after the fact. And some social contracts would be against this. And, as such, yes, it would be railroading.

Force means that the GM is in control of the course of events. This neccessarily means that the players are not. But it doesn't mean that the GM is neccessarily taking the players somewhere they don't want to go, or even may have gone anyhow.

For example, Player A has his PC go down a road. The GM doesn't check the map, but has enounter Z happen anyway. When refering back to the text of the purchased adventure, it turns out that the player took the path that would have gotten there, anyhow.

Now, you say, what's the difference. Let's say that the GM does this openly, and does not refer to the text. Perhaps the player will note that the GM is controlling the events. In this case, the player may, if the social contract does not permit such GM control, call this play railroading. It does not matter that the outcome would have been the same if the player had been in control. The fact of the GMs use of Force when the contract forbade it makes it "railroading.

Note that this could be done flexibly as well (the example is inflexible). If the player notes the GM changing the world after the fact it's the same. Thus, in our example, if the player were aware that in the text that there was nothing down a certain path, and the GM makes something up down that path, then the player will be aware of Force being used.

The number of groups for whom this is not part of the social contract is vanishingly small, I'd say. Most would place this under the aegis of the general rule of GM fiat that says that it's OK for the GM to improvise things. There are some gamists who would object seeing it as an "illegal" change to the parameters of the challenge, however.

And the execution is, of course, critical. If the GMs encounter kills the entire party, just so that they can have a session in hell, that's likely to be seen as railroading by a lot of people. One of the Social Contract items that almost every game has is to assume that the GM is not just playing for his own amusement, but to amuse the rest of the group. As such, using GM force to rout the characters to certain death because the Pizza that Bob ordered has anchovies on it is almost always an example of violation of social contract.

Is that any more clear? See where it's going? It's like Ron put it. Any use of Force that breaks the Social Contract is going to be seen as railroading. No matter what the purpose.

Mike

I guess an example is in order. I was originally gonna provide one but in the end I didn't.

Ok, playing Shadowrun we run into a shoot-out. Now the way the GM decides to play it is: "They are the heroes and this is just a quick scene so a decent hit (i.e. score a moderate wound) is enough to take out a bad guy". The player characters are using the normal wound system and notice how the bad guys die from the same thing that only hurts them a little. Now consider the situation where the social contract is to use the rules as written: "What? We're not using the rules of Shadowrun?! How can they die after only a moderate wound??"

A really bad example, but the only real example I could think of (the others were only theoretical). :)

To sum it up:

1. The GM was improvising a scene
2. The GM changed the results of actions "hurt" -> "killed" to make the scene come out protagonizing the characters
3. This was in violation of social contract


Is this railroading? In a sense the outcome is directed towards "success" but where "success" is pointing is not pre-determined by the GM. (The GM plans a player success, but failure is also permitted. The scene following the shoot-out is not decided on until the shoot-out scene is finished so the game isn't guided anywhere). Isn't this more like railroading without a road?

If we were playing a inflexible game, this would CLEARLY be railroading, but is the label appropriate for flexible games?

This is my only concern with the definition.

Hi Christoffer,

It looks like railroading to me, via the common route of fudging.

But I have to say, either I'm missing something or you are still not providing the necessary information. You talk about the characters "running into" a shoot-out, and you talk about the GM having it pretty well in place that they will survive it, presumably so they can go do something else. But then you say the "outcome is not fixed," which to me directly contradicts everything you've said about the scene so far.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: You talk about the characters "running into" a shoot-out, and you talk about the GM having it pretty well in place that they will survive it, presumably so they can go do something else. But then you say the "outcome is not fixed," which to me directly contradicts everything you've said about the scene so far.

Hi Christoffer,

You're introducing some fog into the discussion by trying to distinguish between "add some atmosphere" vs. "guide the story." The story is whatever happens. If the GM is basically entering the scene with a planned outcome (which is to say, dictating what the characters do, in the sense of the scene as a whole) and breaking the Social Contract to get there, then it's railroading.

I want to emphasize that the outcome is the key. The game you've cited (Shadowrun) includes a fairly sizable chance that player-characters can die in combat. The Social Contract you've cited is to play by the rules, no matter what, which is to say, the players are willing to see their characters die "by the rules." The GM you've cited is breaking the Social Contract by introducing a scene for which the outcome - player survival - is fixed and by fudging the rules. It's railroading, man. No if's and's or but's.

Similarly, your concern with the following scene is irrelevant. It's only important insofar as the GM plans to get to it (planned or not), and therefore has no intention of letting the present scene "do" anything that will interfere with it.

Best,
Ron

Pale Fire wrote: I guess an example is in order. I was originally gonna provide one but in the end I didn't.

Ok, playing Shadowrun we run into a shoot-out. Now the way the GM decides to play it is: "They are the heroes and this is just a quick scene so a decent hit (i.e. score a moderate wound) is enough to take out a bad guy". The player characters are using the normal wound system and notice how the bad guys die from the same thing that only hurts them a little. Now consider the situation where the social contract is to use the rules as written: "What? We're not using the rules of Shadowrun?! How can they die after only a moderate wound??"

.. snip ..

This is my only concern with the definition.

No, the overtness of the act can't be a determinant. I think it's still important for the GM tobe able to say, "Yeah, I was railroading the party, but they weren't aware."

I could see limiting it to matters that were strictly plot related, however. This is not going to be a an easy line to draw, though. One can argue that the color of the sky is part of plot. It's certainly simpler to just say any Force.

How about if we were to say: Railroading is the GM use of Force in a way that breaks the social contract, especially those parts that are related to how the plot develops.

Would that work? Again, this is a living term, and as such people aren't going to agree with our definition anyhow. Remember, even if we do hammer out something that everyone here agrees to, that people are still going to come in slinging the term around, and tell us that railroading refers to, oh, having an "objective" game world, for instance (I could see some pervy Narrativist possibly making such a claim).

Mike

Hmm. This example made me realise a reservation I have about the metaphor of railroading. Under some circumstances, I would use just this sort of device because this is the scenic route. Or because I'm carrying out some sort of exposition or avoiding some sort of exposition; anyway the point is that there can be quite a lot of latitude, but it can be very definately limited. This is more like a canal, in that you can bump into either side but only go one way, if you see what I mean.

Anyway, I think the given scenario is railroading; this on the basis that the players might even enjoy a scene of dying in a ditch, but it aint going to happen today. This encounter is plot-trivial, it is the illusion of a way out of the canal.

Mike Holmes wrote: No, the overtness of the act can't be a determinant. I think it's still important for the GM tobe able to say, "Yeah, I was railroading the party, but they weren't aware."

I could see limiting it to matters that were strictly plot related, however. This is not going to be a an easy line to draw, though. One can argue that the color of the sky is part of plot. It's certainly simpler to just say any Force.

How about if we were to say: Railroading is the GM use of Force in a way that breaks the social contract, especially those parts that are related to how the plot develops.

Would that work? Again, this is a living term, and as such people aren't going to agree with our definition anyhow. Remember, even if we do hammer out something that everyone here agrees to, that people are still going to come in slinging the term around, and tell us that railroading refers to, oh, having an "objective" game world, for instance (I could see some pervy Narrativist possibly making such a claim).

Mike

Marco wrote: 1. If it's behind the curtain, isn't just illusionism? Is "Illusionism" by defnition 'within' the SC?
2. If no one knew, was it dysfunctional? If it's not dysfunction can it be railroading?

If the GM, trying to keep a story going, makes 'deviation' *harder* but doesn't disallow it--is it railroading? If the PC's leave the path and run into the *maximum* number of Goblin Warriors allowed on a wandering monster roll (the GM fudges to try to force a party retreat) but doesn't go into the really-implausable zone (i.e. the number is 2d6, not 1d1000 and he doesn't do it multiple times) is it still railroading?

It doesn't really matter (under the Force definition the answer's yes) but the key point here is that if the GM has "rails" but the players can, with a bit of extra effort, jump them, as a phenomena it appears differently than stereotypical "200 guards show up and you're marched back to the village" railroading we've all heard about.

Hello,

Oh, you guys persist in making it harder than it is. Can you see that all these qualifiers express your particular take on what sort of railroading irks you, personally, most? Let the qualifiers take care of themselves, per person.

For instance, take a player who likes Gamist play, particularly the sort when, at the climax of the scenario, the GM puts aside his screen and rolls openly, to show that it's mano a mano, his character-killer situation vs. four players who don't want their characters to die. I am using an actual person example; this is not a caricature but a fine and valid (and common!) way to play.

To him, it's "fuck the plot, real railroading is when the GM wimps out on killing us when we roll badly, or when he makes us step in his stupid trap even though we practiced all the right precautions."

My point: the definition of railroading cannot include a specific thing for the railroading to be about. That's going to be a Social Contract thing, and a GNS thing, and it'll be specific to that particular group.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: The GM you've cited is breaking the Social Contract by introducing a scene for which the outcome - player survival - is fixed and by fudging the rules. It's railroading, man. No if's and's or but's

Hi Christoffer,

ONE
I'm assuming you've read my later post, now, which I think addresses your larger issue. To clarify, though: Railroading is a general thing, and Railroading-the-X is a fine way to specify.

"He railroaded the plot."
"He railroaded the puzzle/showdown."
"He railroaded the [whatever]."

Let the object take care of itself for the given situation. It'll be a Social Contract thing, necessarily, so it will be local.

TWO
Your example is most definitely about player-character survival. The bad guys go down faster than they ordinarily would, and thus the chance of a player-character being hurt or killed is lessened. You're making it harder than it is, again.

THREE
One last point: Social Contracts are not necessarily fragile, but they do depend on consensus (even if that requires compromise sometimes). When one person is upset in these terms, the Social Contract is indeed violated. I'd really like to avoid the notion that Social Contract has a GM on one side and the players-as-a-group on the other.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: "He railroaded the plot."
"He railroaded the puzzle/showdown."
"He railroaded the [whatever]."

notice a similarity in the use of the term railroading and the mainstream thing as seen in the Accessable? To who? thread. That is, just saying "mainstream" isn't particularly useful in many cases, so we have to specify what part of the mainstream we're talking about. JUst saying "railroading" is also not very useful unless we specify what is being railroaded and whether it's bad or not depends on the Social Contract and what is expected by the players.

This may be why RPG discussion is stymied all over the place. People can't talk about what they want because they don't know what they want. They don't even know what they expect from an RPG so they try it and walk away disappointed because it wasn't what they wanted, but they don't know what they want nor how to get it.

It seems to me that we can look at railroading more positively. Think of it as "fast-tracking" certain elelments of the game (or of play) so they will take care of themselves and the players can focus on and fiddle with the other elements.

Think of it like rides at an amusment park. You basically sit in the car in the Haunted House ride. All you can control is what you look at, but the ride goes somewhere You go by all of the exhibits before you are done. But you can't steer the Haunted House car. However, you can steer the bumper cars and go anywhere you want, within the confines of the ride. However, the ride doesn't go anywhere. All you do is bounce around for a few minutes and then that's it. I think that most people's problems with railroading comes from expectiung the wrong thing from the right ride. You shouldn't get on the haunted house and expect to be able to steer nor should you ride the bumper cars thinging it will go anywhere.

This is a simplistic analogy, but apt, I think.