The following article is taken from the online magazine Critical Miss (www.criticalmiss.com). It''s more aimed at pen and paper RPGs, but I think it''s a good one to read for the folks who want to craft a linear story: =============================================== What Is Railroading? How''s this for a definition: Railroading is when the GM creates a scenario whose plot is so linear that it offers the player characters only one route through. Any attempt by the player characters to perform an action that doesn''t fit into the GMs preconceived idea of how the scenario should develop will be blocked out of hand. Why Do We Railroad? Because it makes GMing easier. There is no way the GM can create a scenario which allows full freedom of action to the player characters, yet also takes account of every possible action that they might perform. In a railroaded scenario the GM can work out each action that the player characters might perform and create, in advance, a descriptive, fully worked-out response. Is It Always Bad? So, if railroading can make a GMs job easier, is there any "good" way in which we can use it? Perhaps. A railroaded scenario is one in which the player characters can only perform certain actions. What you need to look at is the key element that is preventing them from performing the other actions. If this element is believable, reasonable, matches the motivations of the characters, and fits neatly within the reality of the setting, then players will readily accept it. If this element is arbitrary, makes no sense within the setting, does not match the motivations of the characters, and is clearly there to make the GMs job easier, players will resent it. And if there isn''t really any reason at all, and the GM is simply using emotional blackmail to force the players to make their characters pick the desired option - the players will probably just get up and leave. Some Examples Of Bad Railroading "CURIOROSITY DOESN''T KILL THE CAT - ALRIGHT?" The player character group is journeying from a small town to the capital city, carrying a valuable cargo of furs that they have been contracted to deliver to a trader. As they journey down the road they pass a mysterious cave... So what? Why should they care? Why on earth would they divert themselves from their journey and risk losing their valuable cargo, just to go poking around a hole in the ground that is most likely nothing more than a hole in the ground? Because the GM will keep on repeating his description of the "mysterious cave" - that''s why. As players, we know that something is significant simply because it is mentioned. But to our characters it''s just one more cave that we have passed. Give us some reason to go in there, other than mere curiosity. THE SLAMMING DOOR Carefully the thief hammers the stout iron spike into the stone floor. Only when he is satisfied that the door is securely held open does he follow his comrades into the room. Then, err... the spike kindof breaks, and the door, like swings shut. And locks itself. This is the worst kind of railroading. The GM has written the scenario on the assumption that an event will occur (in this case a door slamming shut behind the players) but this has been foiled by them taking precautions (in this case spiking the door open). But he ignores what the players have done, and just makes the event happen anyway. Some Examples Of Good Railroading MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS / AIRSHIP "Well, I guess I''ll wonder around looking for somewhere to get a drink." "There''s only one bar, on the upper deck with views of the ground below." "I''ll go there, order a drink, and see if I can strike up a conversation." "There is a single other passenger there, a Colonel Drendal... you get talking... suddenly he stands up clutching his chest and falls to the floor." If you set your scenario within a contained location, this will constrain the actions that the players can take. You don''t need to worry about a character going off to buy some kind of wonder gadget that will trash your plot. You don''t need to worry about them getting bored and wondering somewhere else, just as your intricate storyline is about to unfold. ''Cous they''ve got nowhere to go. SPACE PATROL "Patrol Group 3, your orders are to travel immediately to the Deltacron system at full speed." "Ok." If your campaign''s theme involves the player character group having some kind of overall motivation or task, you''ll find it much easier to write scenarios. The classic example here is the Star Wars roleplaying game (from West End Games, with a new version out soon from Wizards of the Coast). Since the player characters are all members of the rebellion, you can create scenarios that have as a hook the mere fact that the Empire is doing something bad (which the characters will obviously want to stop). Conclusion Creating scenarios which are written in such a way that there are only a finite number of avenues that the players can take, is good. Nobody likes an ad-libbing GM, umming and ahhing and floundering. But remember two things: Give the players some choices. Put your constraints within the reality of the game world.

Hey, just because you mentioned System Shock 2, I thought I''d mention Deus Ex and the Post Mortem that is in the current issue of Gamasutra. They have some very interesting approaches to character development, and to an extent they''ve done what standard RPGs haven''t.

Even though Deus Ex was basically a stealth shooter, I really felt that I had a choice in overcoming the obstacles in my path.
Sure, I wasn''t able to choose what battles I fought, but at least I fought them on the ground of my choosing. Maybe it was just me, but the feeling I got from choosing not to shoot the ''innocent'' grunts and save myself for the really bad guys really immersed me in the character of JC Denton... but it didn''t have to be that way.

I''ll leave it to others to decide whether this is relevant...

Control?

Hmm... no, I''m willing to bet that a great deal of people would be willing to settle for having the illusion that they''re in control. I remember playing a PnP RPG, we had a choice of about 7 places to have an asteroid impact on a planet. A vote amongst player characters was taken. All the GMs say in it was the description of the locations we could choose from. None were particularly favorable. It was a testiment to the GMs ability (at least I think) when we willingly chose the location that the provided, prescripted map depicted.

What it probably comes down to in the end is that there are good games and there are bad games. Even the best layed plans of mice and men... (you know I have no idea how this cliche ends).

I keep forgetting about the value of replay value. But still, a firecracker is only entertaing the first time it''s lit.

In a pen and paper RPG there''s nothing that says you can''t play a particular scenario out again and again (I never did though), but the character isn''t supposed to have any knowledge about future events so you''ll typically end up with the same resources you had before.

In a CRPG a player is more likely to get away with using pre-existing knowledge. Yeah you can experiment and make sure that you have the stuff you need when the time comes... but you''re still limited to the interface and what the programmers planned for.

I guess that illusion I mentioned before is just that suspension of disbelief thing mentioned so many times before. If it''s there, then the player is gonna think he''s in control.