Railroading, Yay or Nay?

[pemerton]

Players and PCs don't always have the same desires. I've been in a campaign where my PC wanted to be part of a business, but as a player I had no interest. I saw the business as a "target" for bad guys, a way to introduce plot hooks, rather than the purpose of the campaign itself.

Nice example.

 

[koesherbacon]

I typically do this...
First I found out by vote what the party wishes to do next in the adventure. Then, I write and prepare enemies for that segment of the campaign during which time I railroad them to complete that segment... because, let's be honest, I haven't prepared for anything else.

Then, when that segment is over, I present them a few options which they vote on again. Then I prepare that next segment and repeat as necessary.

Hope that helps

 

[timASW]

So you're suggesting that after interfering with the evil overlord's plans a half a dozen times, you should be free to just...walk away? That the day before the climactic battle of good and evil you should be able to say "nah, not feeling it." and get off the hook?

Not all consequences are immediate. And sometimes history does determine your future. Sure, I'll let your party leave the city to burn, but that doesn't mean you won't have powerful wraiths on your tail and that the lich's corrupting evil will just stop. The consequences of your choice may take time to catch up with you, but they will.

I just don't understand the desire to have a game with no long-term consequences.

Sure, but whose to say that the players are the only heroes in the world?

If they feel overmatched by the lich or just dont care about the town then why does the lich automatically win? There are other adventurers, knights, witchhunters, holy priests etc in the town.

With something like that I've had pretty good luck in the past with letting some other group come and take the final battle, because they were ALSO working against the lich the whole time and working on other plots of his that the characters didnt know about.

The PC's rode away while someone else took the glory (and treasure). Ham it up big and the odds of your group ever doing that again go down considerably without an ounce of railroading.

The living world simply continued to live, and someone else became the big, rich, famous, adored by slutty commoners, hero while they slunk off to heal at the tavern.

 

[Dragoslav]

Sure, but whose to say that the players are the only heroes in the world?

The DM.

If the players want to give up fighting the Lich King and his Army of the Infinite Damned (or whatever), that's their prerogative, but later on when the ultimate conclusion is "Since you decided to go back to fighting kobolds and breeding yaks, the Lich King's army has swept across the realm and brings forth 1,000 years of darkness," none of the players can really complain, "But we decided not to do the lich thing anymore! Too much railroading, no thanks."

Whether the DM decides that other people in the game world are capable of rallying together and defeating the BBEG or that such a task could only be accomplished by the small group of especially lucky adventurers who have managed to accrue a great deal of strategic and personal resources, each approach is equally valid. If a player wants to leave it up to somebody else, he should probably find out whether there is anyone else in the game world capable of doing so before getting shirty with the DM and leaving the campaign.

 

[timASW]

The DM.

If the players want to give up fighting the Lich King and his Army of the Infinite Damned (or whatever), that's their prerogative, but later on when the ultimate conclusion is "Since you decided to go back to fighting kobolds and breeding yaks, the Lich King's army has swept across the realm and brings forth 1,000 years of darkness," none of the players can really complain, "But we decided not to do the lich thing anymore! Too much railroading, no thanks."

Whether the DM decides that other people in the game world are capable of rallying together and defeating the BBEG or that such a task could only be accomplished by the small group of especially lucky adventurers who have managed to accrue a great deal of strategic and personal resources, each approach is equally valid. If a player wants to leave it up to somebody else, he should probably find out whether there is anyone else in the game world capable of doing so before getting shirty with the DM and leaving the campaign.

I've never found campaigns where the players are the only big damn heroes around to be believable or internally fulfilling. I can see how some people might though.

 

[N'raac]

I've never found campaigns where the players are the only big damn heroes around to be believable or internally fulfilling. I can see how some people might though.

Whereas other gamers might say they don't find campaigns where the PC's are just run of the mill, and nothing special, fulilling. It depends on the type of game the players desire, as you note. Grerat games can come of Valiant Heroes who battle the Lich King, selfish mercenaries chasing the easiest source of treasure or an array of other possibilities. I think what is most important is ensuring the players and DM share common expectations for the campaign.

That would also include where it falls between rowboat/sandbox/railroad.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Sure, but whose to say that the players are the only heroes in the world?

It's a trope in fiction. If you have a police show focused on small town cops, in an episode where the FBI drops in, they're all arrogant technicians who live in an ivory tower. If you have a police show focused on FBI agents, the local cops they're helping in an episode are hicks who can't investigate something more complicated than moonshine smuggling.

Gaming isn't realistic, it's fiction, and constant attempts to make the game more "realistic" seems to do more harm than good.

 

[teitan]

I have problems with how people use the term "rail road" because if you look at a linear dungeon, some call it a rail road. It's a misapplication of the term. Sometimes a dungeon scenario does call for linear exploration. Example going straight back into a crypt. Not all dungeons have to be sand boxy. Rail road always said to me,and how it was originally intended as a term, that the DM forces players into a story in spite of the characters actions, such as how the DL series wouldn't let some characters die and then they were killed as a plot element even if they really dominated the bad guy in the battle. The white wolf modules were often very rail roady because events would happen that took control out of the players hands. it meant these things have to happen and in this order and you force the players on that path by all means necessary. The avatars trilogy of adventures are also an example, story trumped characters.

 

[Dragoslav]

I think what is most important is ensuring the players and DM share common expectations for the campaign.

That's one of those questions that I think most groups wouldn't think about unless they started off with a laundry list of questions at the beginning of the campaign. Even if a DM and group think they're in harmony over how much railroading they want in their campaign, suddenly something like the Lich King example happens and a player says, "Wait a minute, are you telling me our PCs are the only competent people in the world?" or "Wait a minute, you're telling me that there's been another band of 5 level 20 adventurers just wandering around this whole time?"

I don't think either approach is any less valid than the other, but it's hard to predict which one is going to make the most players the happiest.

 

[by_the_sword]

Meh... It's all good until someone's character dies. Then it's "railroading".