Railroading is bad?

[satori01]

Unless I was talking as an NPC I would not tell a person that an idea was silly, at least not directly. That tends to be the same as telling someone "NO you cant do that", or more prosaicly " The Hand of Plot says you cant do that".

As for Darkness examples especially the planar doorway, I actually see nothing wrong with that, dependent upon when you pull it. If no one has ever escaped from the Dungeon of Doom, a planar doorway makes sense. Also if the planar doorway exerts a strong pressure what is the point of a strength check if the players will just fail it.

As a player I like drastic change at points, being sucked into an alternate plane is cool to me.

As a Dm I also like drastic change, so if a player does something clever, and derails the plot, I also like it. hell I reward it. Nothing beats the portraying the realisim of a desperate villain then when the plan does not survive contact with the enemy.

 

[Coredump]

That's not railroading. This is railroading:

The party is traveling on a road. Suddenly, the floor breaks in and they all fall into the hole, no perception checks, Dex checks or anything allowed.

At the end of the randomly-generated dungeon they have fallen into, the PCs are to be sent to another plane. How, you ask? Well, by opening a door like any other and immediately getting sucked in, no Str checks or anything allowed, of course.

eh, even then. Sometimes life just happens. I guess I could let them roll the perception check, but they will miss it. Sometimes they *can't* affect the outcome. The problem, IMO, is when this status (powerless) goes on for a long time, or happens on a continual basis.

 

[lonesoldier]

Perhaps someone can clear this up for me.

My PCs come to a fork in the path. My planned scenario for the night is that they will find some goblins raiding a caravan, save them and then rush to the caverns in the cliff to save the young maiden who was kidnapped. Either way they go on the path, either fork, will lead them to the same encounter and scenario.

Is this railroading?

 

[Steve Jung]

I don't think so. I think it would be, if the players knew one way would lead to the goblins, chose the other way, then you forced them to go the first way. What you describe is more of a Magician's Choice.

 

[Whisper72]

It is more a matter of frequency. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with the goblin/caravan scenario happening no matter the choice of road, but should it never matter, and the PC's get the feeling that no matter which road they take, the same would have happened either way, then the next time, they'll say:

DM, you choose which way we go, as it has no impact anyhoo....

Somehow, you need to let the PC's know/feel what/that they missed/avoided something by going left versus going right on the road... on some level it must matter...

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Perhaps someone can clear this up for me.

My PCs come to a fork in the path. My planned scenario for the night is that they will find some goblins raiding a caravan, save them and then rush to the caverns in the cliff to save the young maiden who was kidnapped. Either way they go on the path, either fork, will lead them to the same encounter and scenario.

Is this railroading?

Yes. It's not necessarily bad railroading, and it might well go undetected by the PCs, but it's railroading.

For the game to be meaningful, the player characters have to be able to make choices which have a real impact on their character's destiny. (If you aren't going to offer those choices, you might as well sit around drinking beer while the DM tells you what happens, then tot up the xp and treasure.)

Good Choices are those where skilled play would enable the player to gain advantage -v- unskilled play. So, for example, a Bad Choice would be where the player characters see two levers. Pulling one gains them a level of experience, pulling the other costs them a level, and there's no information available to tell the players which is which... it's a non-railroaded choice, but it's arbitrary. A Good Choice would be where the player characters have a choice of routes to take, and taking one route leads to different things to the other, and there's a mechanism available where skilled play would enable the characters to make the decision on an informed basis.

An excellent example of this in practice is where a defeated monster surrenders rather than fighting to the death. Unskilled players will normally kill it or let it go; skilled players will generally question it. In a well-run game, the captive will sometimes possess information which is at least marginally useful to the players ("Yeah, dere are firty-free orcs in dat cave wot's ahead, an' dey've got a pit trap in da entrance corridor an' an ogre wot lives in a pit right at da back - I kin draw yer a map of it if yer promises not ta kill me.") By making the correct choices, the players can gain information which will affect their future.

If the player characters can't affect their chances of success through skilled play, then they'll play in an unskilled fashion (always fight to the death, go into battle without a plan - classic symptom of this is the "ego charge" where one fighter decides to attack without reference to the rest of the party - frequently argue with one another or even fight each other when in hostile territory, and generally assume that the world will adapt itself so they gain levels and treasure, and move through the plot, at a roughly predictable rate no matter what they do.) If they learn that good play gets them treasure and levels and achieves their roleplaying objectives more quickly, they'll start to play better and everyone will have more fun.

Edited to add: Railroading is not necessarily a bad thing when it's used to skip over meaningless events. You can use a railroad to give the characters a quick taxi ride to the start of the adventure, for example; that isn't necessarily bad.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Perhaps someone can clear this up for me.

My PCs come to a fork in the path. My planned scenario for the night is that they will find some goblins raiding a caravan, save them and then rush to the caverns in the cliff to save the young maiden who was kidnapped. Either way they go on the path, either fork, will lead them to the same encounter and scenario.

Is this railroading?

If an encouter is written but the PCs never find it nor had any information about it as a possibility, did it ever exist?

But enough of geek koan.

Lets assume that the DM's preparation time for an adventure is limited. (gasp, impossible right - bear with me ). The DM can either make two mediocre encounters or or one good encounter with the time alotted. The PCs won't have any real reason to come across either encounter. Say, a left and right fork in the road with no real knowlege of what lies beyond either of those two points. Once the PCs choose a way, they will only go that way and not head back. Which is the best choice? The two mediocre encounters or the one good encounter?

I will say the one good encounter. The PCs will never know of the second encounter's existance and will have a more fun because the DM had more time to work on it.

But, this I would not call railroading. Or at least, not a bad kind of railroading. The players' sense of control over the game is not changed either way you choose to do it. They will never know one way or the other what you had planned unless you tell them. Their perception of the world is the same no matter which you choose. And, that perception is what is damaged by bad railroading.

 

[Whisper72]

Adding to the last post, I agree that it is better to have one good encounter, and have it happen, but this does not negate the _feeling_ that one can give the PC's, eitehr up front, or after the fact that the other way was better/worse.

For example, they could meet op with ppl in the next village and overhear in a tavern that on the other fork in the road a caravan got attacked by a big red dragon. The PC's will feel that they made the right choice, and the DM did not have to prepare any second encounter....

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Adding to the last post, I agree that it is better to have one good encounter, and have it happen, but this does not negate the _feeling_ that one can give the PC's, eitehr up front, or after the fact that the other way was better/worse.

For example, they could meet op with ppl in the next village and overhear in a tavern that on the other fork in the road a caravan got attacked by a big red dragon. The PC's will feel that they made the right choice, and the DM did not have to prepare any second encounter....

I love stuff like this... So easy to do and it really improves a game world. IME, it's best to think it through, just in case the PCs run off to follow things up!

 

[philreed]

In a SF game once, the player avoided my adventure hook like the plague. I simply moved the adventure to whatever new planet they landed on. No one was the wiser and a good time was had by all.

This is easily the simplest trick to pull off. No matter which random direction the party sets out on the stumble onto your adventure. And the more the veer away from your structured, planned encounters the deeper into the adventure they get.

Of course, if you want the party to set off in a certain direction just have an important magical gimmick stolen from them. Hey, look! The thief is heading in the direction the DM wants the party to go. How convenient.