GM Knowledge Repository

HJ I am rather curious as to where you get your definition of "railroading" from as I have tried to google the term and have yet to find your definition listed anywhere. According to dictionary.com the closest thing it has to the connotation that we use is "to force (a person) into (an action) with haste or by unfair means" Every other site I've checked out pertaining to railroading and rp have given much different definitions than what you use. I am providing several links to different sites (including WotC) that all speak on what railroading is and all share a similar theme yet have not come across one site (so far) that describes it the way you do. So could you point me to the article or source to your definition please. EDIT: It should be noted that I even searched for railroading as a literary term and did not find anything on it. <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4dmxp/20110922" rel="nofollow">http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4dmxp/20110922</a> <a href="http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Railroading" rel="nofollow">http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Railroading</a> <a href="http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/690/what-is-railroading-and-is-it-a-bad-thing" rel="nofollow">http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/690/what-is-railroading-and-is-it-a-bad-thing</a> <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading" rel="nofollow">http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading</a>

My definitions come from the work done at The Forge some years ago. The dictionary definition you posted above is also fine (if not specific to RPGs in particular) if you read "force" and "unfair" as the key words that indicate the breaking of a social contract. (In fact, "force" can be defined as "the technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When force is applied in a manner which disrupts the social contract, the result is railroading.") Some of the other posts you linked get it wrong in some ways. They frequently appear to confuse railroading and illusionism or assume using a linear plot is railroading or leads to it. That is not correct. This conflation is common in RPG circles and leads to a great deal of confusion and bad results by GMs. The most common thing I see is a GM that creates a linear plot, but doesn't tell players he has done so for fear of it being considered railroading. So what he does is engage in illusionism techniques (often referred to as "the illusion of choice"), allowing some minor decisions to impact the plot while redirecting the major decisions of players back to the plot. If the players didn't agree to a game like that, then the GM is railroading. (Some players accept that illusionism is necessary to minimize GM prep and offer their willing suspension of disbelief.) It's a vicious cycle that's only broken by the GM saying what honesty demands and asking for player buy-in: "I've written a plot, the adventure is on that plot and nowhere else, and will you agree to follow it?" I suspect the stigma of being considered a "railroader" frequently prevents the GM from being honest and thus illusionism and actual railroading follows. Only the GM is shooting himself in the foot based on not understanding a key aspect of railroading: A plot is not a railroad and you're not railroading if you have the players' buy-in to follow the plot. To further clarify, illusionism is a family of techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, exerts force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features. A linear plot is a predetermined sequence of events, not "a railroad". It's only when you force the players down that linear plot that you're railroad ing . If you have their agreement (buy-in) that they will follow it, you're no longer forcing them and thus no longer railroading. This agreement may also include their willing suspension of disbelief with regard to the illusion of choice. Long story short, it's only railroading if it breaks the social contract i.e. the players have not agreed to follow the predetermined path or plot and the GM forces them down it anyway. It's perfectly fine to have a plot, linear or otherwise. It's not okay to railroad. The way you avoid that is to ask your players to follow the plot and get their consent. With all that in mind, maybe it's just easier to not prep plots at all and focus on locations and situations instead. But that is a preference, not a definition.

Per Webster's , the phrase definitely pre-dates modern gaming. According to etymology.com , the word used as a verb comes from an autobiography published in 1873. I was playing for years before the term came up in popular usage. Force is a word commonly applied to definitions of the phrase, which is pretty much HJ's point: it isn't railroading unless you force the players to buy into the premise/concept.

Thanks for the read. I'd suggest though that forcing someone is the opposite of getting their buy-in . But I think we're on the same page in any case! Buy-in is key to the success of any game. If you lack the players' buy-in on the premise, plot, or other elements of the adventure, you risk a situation in which they work against your creative agenda. This produces some very boring and contentious games. When the players have offered their buy-in, the game runs quite smoothly indeed. An interesting bit about that definition in Wikipedia is "often by having been involved in its formulation," suggesting that buy-in is often achieved through direct collaboration. Since RPGs are an exercise in collaborative storytelling, this makes a ton of sense!

Reposting this from elsewhere because I thought it may be appropriate for this thread: The word "plot" gets thrown around to describe a lot of things in the hobby. "Story" and "plot" are frequently conflated, for example. So it's helpful to break it all down to get one's head around it: A plot is a sequence of events of a narrative, either simple or complex. In an RPG context, this is often a path the GM creates as part of his prep and then guides the players through it during play. A story in an RPG is a byproduct of play. It's the tale you tell about the events that took place during play. This is something that the entire group creates simply by playing. It is not created beforehand by the GM - that's either plot or metaplot . A metaplot refers to the things going on "around" the PCs. When you imagine what your NPCs, monsters, and villains are doing, pursuing their goals and playing to their motivation in a manner that could snowball into conflict depending on player character action or inaction, this is the metaplot. If you take control of a player character's decisions, or opportunities for decisions, in any way which breaks the social contract for that group, then you are railroading . If you have created a plot and you have obtained the players' buy-in on following that plot, you are not railroading because it does not break the social contract. A reason a lot of people don't like plots is because of experiences with railroading, but while it is a very common phenomenon when the GM has prepared a plot, it's not inherently so because some players offer their buy-in on GM-prepared plots. I suspect many GMs, frustrated novelists that they often are, write plots but because of the "railroading stigma" frequently attached to plot-based design, they don't say they have a plot. Instead, they engage in illusionism techniques to subvert player agency in a way that favors the prepared plot. This is the "invisible railroad" or the "illusion of choice." A better approach is to simply get the players' buy-in on the plot instead of trying to fool them. That's as simple as saying, "Hey look, I got a really cool idea for a plot and I'd like to play it out. The adventure is on that path and nowhere else. Are you cool with that?" Plenty of players are ready to offer the willing suspension of disbelief to follow a trusted GM's plot. Another reason others don't like plots is because they are inherently more work than a game that does not use them and much of it can be wasted. There are also a bunch of pitfalls associated with it, especially when the players, unintentionally or otherwise, go off that plot. Here's an article on that very topic: Don't Prep the Plot . Ultimately, all that matters is buy-in. Any approach can work with it and none work well without it.

The idea of a buy-in segues right into another great management concept that applies to gaming groups: stakeholder. Once you've bought-into the premise, you are now a stakeholder in that premise. You own it as much as the GM does. That empowers the players and gives them a sense of responsibility towards the game and helps them gain and maintain agency over their characters. Just another reason to hold a Session 0 with new players (we wouldn't bother with my group of 20-something years, but that's a whole other discussion of group dynamics).

Fantastic point!

Ok, I have a question regarding the general opinion on this, I've seen a thread or two in which people argue that you should just have the person roll fellowship/charisma tests regardless of how good they roleplay a conversation, no matter how good their speech is, on the grounds that their characters aren't necessarily as good orators as they are and that modifiers are just for whether or not the audience is more likely to listen. I'm gonna refer to this as the roll first method. I personally feel that character interaction and roleplaying should be put first at all times and that players should be encouraged to put their best into conversations rather than just viewing them as another roll, therefore I prefer to give bonus modifiers the better the more persuasive they actually are, with some situations foreseeable where a great speech could mean an automatic success. I'm also more inclined to this opinion by the fact that the Dark Heresy rulebook even implies that such a thing should be valued in its partial-success section. So yeah, I'm just wondering what people thoughts are on the matter?

I think that it depends if your players agree to play it like that. Because in the end that method will bend a mechanic rule (roll charisma + your skill to convince a NPC) to your fiat, and make it roll your dice and add a bonus that is dependent if your GM finds you clever or not. Which is something loads of player won't mind (actually mine asked me, in a way, to do that: they want me to do things that are realistic and then told me "I don't know what I mean by that, just do what you want of it".), but some will. So get your players to agree on that before doing it. If you want to play RAW (rules as written) and your game states that the outcome of a social action is dependent on the result of a roll, then roll first to avoid any fiat. If you want to play with your own way of doing things (apparently rewarding players for what you feel is a clever reasoning) then warn your players beforehand. But rewarding what you think is clever characterisation is not "putting role-playing first". (Beware that this advice is what I think about it, after listening to some people's thoughts and clever advice. It doesn't mean that I succeed in applying it all times.)

You should do what the rules of the game you're playing tell you to do. If the game says the GM is empowered to determine resolution-outcomes instead of using dice and mechanics, then it's fair play. If it says dice and mechanics should be used to determine resolution-outcomes, and you as GM decide to determine it by fiat (even if it's because you just liked the speech someone just gave), then you are engaging in illusionism. That is a practice I cannot recommend, common though it is.

A slight clarification on my earlier comment, what I meant by a situation with an "automatic success" was more of a modifier for the speech combined with other modifiers already being present making a roll all but pointless, which is not unheard of in Dark Heresy, (see psychic invocation), though probably still done just to ensure there's no nature critical failure, causing an Ork to charge in the room, I don't condone giving true automatic successes on meaning tests just because you think the guys clever. But, yes you guys do make very good points, I, of course, never condone actions specifically against player wishes, and recommend you ask them before you do something you're unsure of.

One thing to keep in mind is whether something is really a roll in the first place. Your game system will tell you, but what I see (particularly in D&D 4e groups I've joined) is the DM asking for checks that aren't appropriate to the situation or game's rules. Flirting with the barmaid isn't a Diplomacy check. Lying to the merchant isn't' a Bluff check. Climbing a tree when there is nothing else going on in the scene isn't an Athletics check. The rules in that game specifically say the DCs listed are meant for dramatic conflict resolution, not for simulating every action a PC takes. In short, if there's no actual conflict, then there's no roll. If there is dramatic conflict, then the rules of the game demand mechanical resolution. If there's dramatic conflict and the DM doesn't ask for rolls in favor of determining the result for himself (for any reason), then he's engaged in illusionism and is no longer playing the game at that moment (if not always) - he's making himself the game. The flip side to that coin is a player saying, "I want to make a Diplomacy check." That is similarly against the rules, though common. The rules specifically say that the DM asks for checks to be made, not players. So the only response to "I want to make a Diplomacy check" is "Yes, and what are you specifically doing? What diplomatic action are you attempting?" followed by "That sounds like a Diplomacy check?" The reason this is so is because "I want to make a Diplomacy check" does not add new information to the scene and that's bad. It offers nothing on which to build future interactions and context. So, here we have a particular game (D&D 4e) saying that not every action is a check and that players can't just state they want to make checks. Meaning a player is already required to be more explicit in his fictional actions in order to make a roll. Thus, incentive is not needed in the form of conditional modifiers from a biased, magnanimous DM. You as a player are REQUIRED by the rules of the game to offer that speech or description. Otherwise, you don't get to roll in the first place. Players often forget this and DMs do too. That's when they start thinking they need "incentives" to get the players to follow the rules of the game they've agreed to play. You don't. You just need to hold people to their agreements. The "roll first method" still requires the player to state their character's goal and intent clearly before rolling. "I want to approach the king diplomatically and encourage him to sign the treaty." Then you roll. Then based on the results of that roll, you can add descriptive flourish appropriate to the result. "Sweet, a 25. Good King Edouard, I implore you with all of virtuous paladin's heart to sign this treaty and end a generation of bloodshed. New threats emerge in the form of the goblin horde and we must band together to resist them. We will be destroyed if he do not forge this alliance." (Note, again, that your game will tell you what's appropriate. You should do that first. The advice I offer in this particular post has a decidedly D&D 4e bent to it, though most modern games I've seen these days also call for checks only in dramatic situations. Check your game's rules.)

For Dark Heresy the rules say any action that would have a "dramatic" result, which has just enough vagueness to leave some interpretion to the GM. I personally think a few tests may be neccesary to find millenia old songs on the jukebox and she how amazing their dance moves are, but thats just me, my players don't object. However, that I feel is more of a GM/player preferance type of thing, and unless your players feel like taking frivolous tests its not something I reccomend.

I would suggest examining that rule closer to make sure you're not just getting confirmation bias. I don't own the game so I can't tell you for sure. But what you posted doesn't add up in my mind as being a part of any decent game design. It's sounds like over-simulation that exists outside the rules of the game. The key thing here is that the game likely doesn't intend for you to use a mechanic to simulate someone's dance moves just because; rather, it is designed for you to test if their dance moves have a dramatic impact on the current scene , such as convincing the angry bikers that you're no threat or trying to distract an NPC while someone else in the party performs some other action on the sly. That dramatic conflict is what is being tested and in the absence of such a conflict finding old songs and busting a move doesn't get a roll. It just succeeds.

All I can find regarding the matter within the core rulebook, besides various examples is that "whenever the action, task, or effort could have dramatic consequences- things that effect your story, your characters health, and so on- you must take a test" So yes there is a little more to it but that and so on leaves a large amount of room for GM interpretation. Again check with your players, but I personally believe finding "Fire on Dance Floor" on a jukebox in the 41st millenia would be a "challenging +0" task, but thats just the people I play with, if you think finding a song 40,000 years old could just be a lucky instant success, then ok. I would rather just roll on a situation where it honestly should just be impossible than give a fiat success or failure.

Another way of looking at it is that if the rules don't cover it, then no mechanics need apply. You just decide that it is so on a collaborative basis by saying "Yes, and..." A non-game specific way of looking at it might be to consider whether there is anything opposing the character's action and what failure looks like. Here, you could argue that "the passing of the ages" is opposing the character's attempts to find a specific song. So what happens if they fail that task to find the music? If the answer is "You don't find it," then you probably don't need a roll. All you're doing in that case is subverting player ideas using the justification of a game mechanic (that might not even exist in the game). Instead, I recommend just saying, "Yes, you find the song, and it's oddly enough the only one that works properly in this jukebox. Why do you suppose that is and what do you do once you find it?" Now, if failure can be interesting, that's a different story: "You find the song, but playing it draws the attention of a gamma moth and its terrifying screeches herald its imminent arrival. What do you do?"

Interesting, it was a tech-use in this case and since the game has rules that allow for certain failed tests only making a task take longer, he found it after some trouble, and then preceded to whip-out an afro from under his helmet that he never takes out, one which for 9 sessions we never knew he had and see a different side of our cowardly guardsmen, I liked that but i guess it would've happened anyway if I just granted to success, on the other hand if he failed by at least on degree I probably would have had him trying to program the song in from memory, and the jukebox bursting into flame causing.....well it depends on how good he is at talking his way out of things.

Or maybe if he fails, he finds the song anyway but at a cost (e.g. the gamma moth). This is known in some circles as "failing forward." Meaning you get what you want, but something happens as a result and now you have to deal with this new "problem." This may or may not be something that works with Dark Heresy mechanics - you'll have to check that out yourself. It's possible that, as I suspect, not every use of technology would be a "tech use" roll. Only tech-use cehcks in charged situations - that is, situations that contain tension and dramatic conflict - would be. (This is a guess.) What was the dramatic conflict in the jukebox scene? In-game time is rarely a meaningful cost unless there is a countdown timer in effect (which I highly recommend for all adventures, but I understand this isn't common).

The issue with technology and the Warhammer 40k universe is that knowledge of it is more or less a highly guarded secret and if not for the fact that it was mere jukebox he'd be at 1/2 penalty for not being a character with the tech-use skill, but I do see your point it wasn't exactly conflict type event just my players trying to look suave. I am highly in favor of both countdown clocks (which I use ex. bombs are planted or the players are infiltrating a building an need to subdue someone in an elevator before the doors open and their cover is blown) and failing forward. Sadly I'm not aware of any giant gamma moths attacking space ships, but perhaps the bar goers really hate the song due to some past events.