What's the problem with railroading?

[Dodavehu]

I don't really understand the universal hatred for "rail-roading" players. I like having a couple avenues to chose from but "sandbox" games I've played in have been pretty awful.

Maybe it's because I'm more of a writer than a gamer, but I like to make a character, get presented with clear goals (perhaps with a few possible ways to reach that goal), and then go after that goal. The goal will ideally lead to the next goal and form an arc.

I have never found the game where we a dumped into a city and asked what our characters do next.

Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the terms. Can someone explain the appeal?
--

 

[GandalfMithrandir]

I think that players want to have complete control over what their characters do, as opposed to only being given two or three options of how to go about achieving their goals, and a railroad can't give them them the choices they might want to make, and they might be forced to like a certain character that they actually hate, whereas in a sandbox, they can just kill him if they want to*

Another factor, I think, is the GMs creativity, because playing a sandbox with a person who is completely uncreative will not work out well, but playing with someone who can come up with ideas out of thin air can be much better, because even if you go off of their plans, they can just make something decent or even good up for the party to go through.

So anyway, that's why I think that, I'm not really sure, I have played in and both enjoyed and hated both types of adventure.

*Assuming the party is evil, or at least the character was neutral at best

 

[Wik]

Look at it this way - as a player, your only input on the game world is through your character. If you play in a tight railroad, your character's decisions have been more or less made by the GM already. In short, you have lost your only source of input on the game world.

Now, some people consider any game in which the GM has made plans as a railroad, which I think is unfair. But there are many definitions of the term - it's kind of been a dividing line on this website, at least. Personally, I see a railroad as a situation in which PCs are given only one reasonable line of action for a considerable length of time, and in which any attempts to "break free" of this line of action is promptly negated by the GM.

A dungeon in which there is only one straight path to the bad guy is partially a railroad, because at least the PCs have some manner of choice in how they deal with each encounter on the way. If each encounter is scripted, yes, it's a railroad. If the dungeon is designed in such a way that each room has multiple doors, but each doorway automatically leads to the next encounter (ie, Room A has three doors, but no matter which door you take, it will lead to Room B because the GM is fudging the map), it's still a railroad.

Some players love railroads, because it lets them focus on what they like in the game. Others, though, need to feel like they have input and that their choices carry weight - in short, that their successes were earned as were their failures.

For what it's worth, I fall in the second camp rather firmly, so realize this post of mine is just a touch biased.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Dodavehu,

I think the generally accepted definition of railroading is forcing the game to a particular resolution without the input of the players. In other words, the player's actions have zero influence on the outcome of the campaign. Effectively they are following the GMs storyline or railroad as it were. This is a polar extreme and never 100% happens. However, a campaign may still have strong railroaded elements (and thus be titled a "railroad" when perhaps it does not quite deserve the title and thus why there can be confusion in regards to the term).

However, I think what you are talking about is something slightly different where the adventure is guided or directed by the GM and is bought into by the players. The players accept to pursue a GM hook and follow it to its conclusion. Player input is important as they react to the different situations presented by the GM.

A Sandbox on the other hand is where the GM creates the world and NPCs and the players direct there own actions and institute their own goals which the GM reacts to. Most GMs though will still have a few hooks of their own with the movers and shakers of the world instituting their own plans (and hooks into the world). Just as the railroad is an extreme, a true sandbox is at the other pole.

However, most games I have seen or played in have elements of both GM directed and Player directed play. It comes down to the group and their preferences as to how much of one or the other is involved.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[RangerWickett]

Let's say the GM really wants the party to meet a nice guy who's important to the plot, then have a scene where the bad guys actually kidnap the NPC while he's under the PCs' watch. The goal is to make the PCs hate the villains, and be motivated to make up for their failure. This is very hard to do.

A bad game is:

The party meets the guy. Later on the party and the guy go into a dungeon, but inside they are attacked by overwhelming odds, who probably will have to knock the party out (but not kill them), then leave with the hostage.

That makes the players hate the DM, moreso than the villains.

An average game is:

The GM realizes he can't get the NPC without killing the party, so he has the NPC get abducted when the party isn't around.

This still removes player choice, but it can sometimes be accepted if it sets up an interesting enough scene later.

A good game is:

The party meets the guy. Later on the party and the guy go into a dungeon which is built into a cliffside. There's a village on top of the cliff. They clear out the dungeon, and are feeling pretty good about themselves. But then, as they try to leave, they see the exit is blocked off.

Someone shouts to them, "Hand over the NPC, or we'll magically collapse the cliff. You don't want those nice villagers up above to die in a rockslide, do you?"

This makes the players kinda hate themselves, because either choice has bad consequences. Hopefully you can make one consequence bad enough that they're very likely to make the choice you want, but you have to have a plan for if they go the other way.

And no, the plan can't be, "Keep trying to kidnap the NPC."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Bolded for emphasis ...

Maybe it's because I'm more of a writer than a gamer, but I like to make a character, get presented with clear goals (perhaps with a few possible ways to reach that goal), and then go after that goal. The goal will ideally lead to the next goal and form an arc.

I have never found the game where we a dumped into a city and asked what our characters do next.

Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the terms. Can someone explain the appeal?
--

If you've always got more than one way to reach a goal, you haven't been on a real railroad.

 

[Coldwyn]

Railroading as such isn´t good or bad, neither is the perceived counter-point, the sandbox.

As long as it has been communicated that it´s gonna be a railroad and everyone involved knows what it means, there´s hoing to be a good time.
Forex, if I tell everyone at start that we´re hoing to play a Paizo AP, then wellcome aboard the train, enjoy the wild story and fantastic vistas.

OTOH railroading tend to be the hallmark of mediocre or bad dms, trying to "tell a story" in the most blunt way possible, by subjugating the characters or, even more distirbing, the players choices to that story.

Also OTOH, a sanbox can be brutally boring if all possible leads are unattractive or, more boring, there´re no leads to follow.

 

[Azgulor]

I don't really understand the universal hatred for "rail-roading" players. I like having a couple avenues to chose from but "sandbox" games I've played in have been pretty awful.

Maybe it's because I'm more of a writer than a gamer, but I like to make a character, get presented with clear goals (perhaps with a few possible ways to reach that goal), and then go after that goal. The goal will ideally lead to the next goal and form an arc.

I have never found the game where we a dumped into a city and asked what our characters do next.

Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the terms. Can someone explain the appeal?
--

I think you are misinterpreting the terms, or at least taking the counterpoint (i.e. sandbox) to the extreme where there is no direction.

Sandbox can be "Here are 6 plot seeds. Introduce them to the characters and see which ones they are interested in/pursue."

At the extreme end of the Railroad Train, you can eliminate meaningful player choice. The story comes to a standstill unless the players do/participate in "X event/encounter".

This is particularly loathed in RPGs as you're playing a game where the player has complete control over the characters actions. The mechanics define chances for success and failure, but unlike a board game or video game, a PC can conceivably try a lot of things, approach problems differently than the GM anticipated, or go in completely different directions. This is a huge part of the appeal of RPGs to many players.

On the flip side of the screen, many who hate/dislike railroading have encountered THAT GM. Yes, THAT guy. The one who wields his GM authority as if he is the omnipotent god of the setting. Many have experienced situations like:
Player 1: "I go to the market to see if my contacts can obtain maps of the old temple from before the castle was built above it."
Player 2: "I search the libraries of the wizard's guild in search of the same."
GM: They don't work.
Player 2: "You didn't even roll any dice!"
GM: Look, you're not going to find anything like that. So quit screwing around and go to the Duke's party like the NPC said you should."

An extreme example, but only slightly exaggerated in some cases.

Another prime, non-RPG related Railroad: Exhibit A, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. You know the podrace? Well, Lucas was hell bent on having it. Couldn't really work it gracefully into the story, so were supposed to believe these 2 highly trained warrior-diplomats, when faced with a mechanical issue on their starship can find no other possible scenario for obtaining a replacement part other than letting a 10-yr old boy participate in a life-threatening race. But it was cool, wasn't it?

The definition, and more importantly, the degree to which plot, story, or outline crosses over into railroad varies by player/group. I used to plot my adventures and campaigns much more than I do today -- mainly b/c my players thought of things that I hadn't anticipated. Should I have penalized their creative problem-solving or their desire to embrace role-playing or charater development just so an encounter could go as I envisioned it? No. They're not following a script, after all.

Plots are fine. Plots with limited choices are fine. But give your players the ability to take unexpected routes with your plot. For critical encounters you may have to give them the illusion of choice (all avenues lead to same point/nexus). That's ok, too. After all, you are putting work into the adventure.

If they won't take your plot points, move on -- but show the consequences in game:

That princess they didn't rescue? She was sacrificed to a dark god and now the royal family is in disarray and the threat of civil war now exists as opportunitic nobles seek to take advantage.

Etc.

On the other end, embracing the sandbox can be a whole lot of fun, too. Some of the greatest adventures, characters, and moments in gaming in my campaigns came about b/c my players took a route or made a choice I didn't anticipate. Also, I've found players are much more invsted in the story and it's outcomes when they've chosen it, rather than be told: "You've been hired to do X."

 

[Umbran]

I think that players want to have complete control over what their characters do...

I think some players like to have complete control, and others don't have that requirement.

I think it looks like a big deal, and we have arguments about it, because some posters like to speak as if they know what most or all other gamers like. We on the internet have this horrible tendency to make big deals out of hypotheticals that, in the real world, are not such a big deal.

 

[jmucchiello]

It's actually the difference between the carrot or the stick. Your OP implies a carrot approach: you meet a guy, he gives you a task, it matches what you want to do so you do it. This leads to the next arc, everyone is happy.

Even the most diehard sandbox player will be fine with such a setup. However, once he decides, "I don't like that goal". Jumping out of the sandbox should just change the carrot. Jumping off the train, gets you the stick.

Just about all problems with railroading and sandboxing involve either bad DMing ("We leave the city." "The gates are closed." "I cast fly and we fly over the wall." "The spell fails when you get close to the wall.") or jerks for players ("There are ten patrons in the bar all looking to hire some adventurers." "I set fire to the tavern.")

How does the DM motivate his players? Carrot or stick? Strict railroads look like sticks. But all sandboxes are not carrots. It is hard to grow carrots in sand. And thus both methods require the DM and the players work together to get the most out of either method.