Players: Does anyone else not mind railroading?

[Treebore]

Every single game I have ever run has been a rail road, I come up with an idea, bad guys, things I want to happen, and they happen. I often use modules, they are total rail roads, but time after time, game session after game session, my players keep coming back, and new players join, so I am obviously doing things right, I totally rail road them but they don't know it, or feel it.

The only way for a DM to not RR is to sit there and totally react to what the players do, with nothing pre planned. Which I think is why my players do not feel Rail Roaded, if they want to walk away from something and go do something else, I'm fine with that. I am only as committed to a story idea as my players are, so if they decide its not fun enough to keep doing, we all move on to another idea. So even though I have things planned out ahead of time, and desired goals in mind, if they want to switch to a different RR track and head East instead of West, we switch.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

As a player:

I am most comfortable if I have a clear goal. I am not comfortable deciding what the other players' goal is going to be. I don't like playing "60 minute" RPGs, where the characters' goals are so fractured that out of a five-hour game session, each player gets 60 minutes with the DM, and spends the other four hours doing whatever.

Taken together, this means that, as a player, I don't care for sandbox play.

In general, though, I want real choice ... but I'm willing for the DM (or adventure writer) to have winnowed the possibilities down to a few (plus whatever the DM can successfully adjudicate on the fly).

So I guess you could say that I want real choice ... but I don't expect infinite choice (and, in fact, am not comfortable with it). So I'm okay being on the railroad ... as long as I get to choose whether to go through Chicago, Kansas City, or Louisville.

As a GM:

In a prep-heavy system (3.5, for instance), I simply don't have the time for the preparation I'd need to not have to improvise vast swaths of adventure, and I'm not particularly good at improvising "big picture" stuff. The default choice for me ends up being approximately what I enjoy as a player.

In a prep-light system (M&M, for instance), most of my preparation time can go into "big picture" stuff, and I'm much more comfortable with simply presenting the world and letting the PCs do literally anything they like. (My PCs are really good about swallowing hook, line, and sinker, so I usually have a very good idea of where things are going. But they definitely don't have to go there.)

 

[ggroy]

Railroads are fine depending on the type of game and the players involved.

In my experience, I can deal with railroads to some extent in particular games such as:

- evening one shots
- almost pure hack and slash, with very little to no role playing
- not so serious games, to let off some steam after a long day at work
- trying out a new ruleset, for the first while
- the players actually want a pure railroad

 

[Iceman]

By your definition, I would have no qualms about playing in such a campaign with a good GM and players.
But then, I expect a good GM and players to be able to engage the narrowly scoped plot, develop in-character relationships with the world and each other, and influence the game world in meaningful ways.

But Grymar's 'stick' and PCat's 'running my PC for me' are where the negative stereotype comes from. Those are the extremes and indicate that you are not, after all, playing with a good GM.

Me, I like my published/con modules to be railroads. Yes, I appreciate it when there is an investigative scene that has four different ways of acquiring the info needed to get to the next encounter - we get to choose one based on our skillset and it feels right. But I don't like scenarios the GM didn't write and the PCs are not connected to, wherein we are expected to generate our own leads - or left to puzzle things out with characters that have no business trying.
And I've played a ton of rpga-published modules. Two tons, maybe. The best ones, to be perfectly honest, are the ones that engage you with memorable baddies, a delicious setup, and stunning set-pieces... that you have no opportunity nor desire to ignore/skip/miss.

In a home game, I'm not sure what my preference would be or that I would even have one. Me like gaming. You run game, me play.
-VIC

 

[Steel_Wind]

There is macro railroading and micro rail-roading.

Macro rail-roading is the majority of all RPG campaigns and the game would break down without the social contract approving of the macro-railroad.

In this context, I mean that the GM has presented "the adventure" to the players. There' s the plot hook and there is an expectation and agreement that that is what you are going to do. This is especially important in games with a more complicated rule structure as it becomes quite difficult to whip up an adventure, locale, foes and plot on the fly.

Not saying it can't be done - some GMs excel rather well at this. But most, I think it must be admitted, do not.

In that sense, there is a social contract between GMs and players that the macro-railroad is the default structure of the game.

The more granular that scale becomes, the less acceptable it becomes, to the point where a GM interferes and forces the players to NOT do a thing or, alternatively TO DO a thing that the players just don't want to do. The more specific the choice, generally speaking, the more objectionable it becomes.

Turning to the great Grand-Daddy Railroad of them all, let's look at DragonLance DL-1, Dragons of Despair.

Macro acceptable railroad. There is an adventure where you are going to escape capture in the Inn of the Last Home and ultimately rescue this barbarian princess and her magic staff from capture and find out where it came from and what it means.

This is acceptable railroading on a macro scale.

The module progresses to more heavy-handed tactics. As the armies advance, they tightens the noose across the lands of Ansalon, forcing all player movement to a choke point at Xak Tsaroth - where the "dungeon" is.

This is heavy-handed, but might be objectionable to some players and 'okay" to others.

Lastly, there is an encounter with the elves where they take you prisoner and forcibly bring you to the Forest Master - an encounter which is, in turn, a one way trip via pegasi to the swamps of Xak Tsaroth.

This last bit is over the top micro rail-roading and is at a level of overtness where the design is no longer acceptable by the majority of players given present day standards of adventure design.

1- The Adventure itself? "Ok" to most but the most ardent sandbox players;
2- Limiting Options for Overland Movement and Overtly Channelling the PCs to a specific Area? Grudgingly Accepted - but the strings are beginning to be seen too clearly now...;
3- Marching the PCs at Sword Point to a one way, no save Sleep plus airline trip to the dungeon locale? Unacceptable.

We will leave aside here the whole issue of obscure death and unkillable Plot NPCs in DragonLance, which can work in some cases as long as the strings are not overtly seen. Once the unkillable NPC is revealed as unkillable - verisimilitude tends to breakdown and the unacceptable railroad is on.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As a wise man once said:

There's nothing wrong with a railroad if the train's headed to Awesome Town.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Like others I have played in both good and bad railroads. I don't mind railroads where I have at least a little flexibility in making choices. I don't mind if the DM just gives me the illusion of my making choices, when I really don't.

As a DM I have run some very horrible railroads. The worst were when I first started DMing as an adult after years of only being a player. I slowly learned. Now I prefer the middle ground where the players have a few different choices of an adventure to follow. Once on the adventure, I have become pretty good at adapting things if the players take things in an unexpected direction, or at least delaying them until I have time to adjust.

My only request is, if I give you hooks A, B, C and D, please choose from one of them rather than try and push me into alternative Q that I haven't even considered. I'm not likely to be able to create a fun evening starting from nothing. If you suggest Alternative Q, then choose one from A to D for now, you may find Q will become a viable choice in the near future.

 

[KidSnide]

I don't mind at all when the GM decides what adventure the PCs are going to play. Frankly, I prefer it that way. I'd rather play with a group of other PCs who are all interested in accomplishing the same goals, and I'd rather a GM point me towards the most interesting parts of the game, as opposed to just parts that the GM is ready to improvise. Partially this is because GMs benefit from being able to plan ahead, but mostly this is because I want to head to a part of the game world in which my PC's actions can have a significant effect.

Of course, the GM needs to know which parts of the game will be the most fun, but... well... I think that's generally a good idea anyway.

So, I want a GM to present the PCs with an interesting problem, but I don't want the GMs to dictate how the PCs attempt to solve it. If the players don't have meaningful choices about how they approach the adventure, then I think you're playing more of a combat sim than a RPG. Some WotC modules come a little too close to this for my taste, but there's usually enough to let the players think outside the box.

Of course, I think the best railroads (to use your term) have junctions. One of the best ways to give the PCs meaningful decisions is to design a tightly plotted game in which the PCs have the opportunity to make a high-leverage decision.

As an example, in the Aalterdam games (playable at AnonyCon, for those of you in the Northeastern US), the first round is often a narrowly pathed travel game in which you discover something about the world. In the second round, the PCs typically get to a major decision point in which the intra-party difference can come to a head and the party (united or not) can have a great impact on the game world. (The decisions of the championship table become "canon" and influence the design of next year's game.)

-KS

 

[Doug McCrae]

I would say that a fairly high percentage (at least half) of the campaigns I've ever played in have met the railroad definition I posted above (predefined story with an expectation that the players would more or less stick to it)

Well over half, in my experience. The vast majority of games I've played in, the GM has prepared a fairly limited amount of material and the expectation is that it will mostly be used. That's not to say there can't be meanderings along the way, or some content bypassing. But basically the way most rpg sessions work is:

1) GM prepares a single adventure.
2) PCs go on that adventure.

maintain a general willingness to take hooks as they're presented and be willing to see where the plot takes us, aka simply NOT being the guy who, when told the princess has been kidnapped, declares "who cares, the princess is a bitch, lets try to take over the underworld of the city instead."

Totally. In most games players have a responsibility to bite at plot hooks, imo. When what is obviously "tonight's adventure" is offered, you go on it. No refusals of the call to adventure.

So I ask you enworld, do railroads get a bad rap?

Yes, but remember that what you call a railroad, a lot of people would call linear. Linear games only become railroads when the players feel their freedom is being curtailed in an unreasonable way.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think that it's important to note that there's a difference between "having a plot" and "being railroaded." You can have a BBEG and vague story outline without railroading the PCs. It's when you dictate how the PCs need to act or get waaaaaaaaay to indepth with how things in every part of the plot go that you start railroading. It's the difference between saying "The evil wizard is in this castle" and "To reach the evil wizard you must pass through this forest and this cave and go on this sidequest." When the BBEG can only be killed through this one method that you need to guide the players through, why are the players even there?

In a BESM game I'm going to be GMing vaguely soon, the campaign is divided into various tasks the PCs will have to do. The tasks themselves, however, are very open ended (One will be nothing more then 'Evade the police for 24 hours'). I'll have a few ideas on how a task can be done, but for the most part, the players are free to do whatever they think best to succeed at them. If they're floundering, I'll throw them a hint or two (DMNPCs aren't a problem when they never interfere with the game - they're there to drop hints or help guide actually lost players). Ultimately, how they succeed at the task is up to them; I fully know that players are wily and weird thinking beings - hell, I'm one of them - and they'll make some truly rediculous jumps in thought that I could never expect.

So in the example, "Evade the police for 24 hours." In this game, the PCs are all something similar to ghosts, unseen by most people. Out of the blue, the enigmatic taskmaster makes them fully visable - and now they have a warrant on their heads. How do they escape the police? Hell if I know! That's for them to figure out and operate on.

Is there an end plot? Sure! Most of the tasks will, as the game closes down, come together and be shown to have various effects (Police suddenly have a spree of crime and various criminals spotted throughout the city causes security and police awareness to be ramped up, which leads to later things, etc, etc). Are there milestones and vague "this must be done" along the way? Of course. But there isn't one line through them. Maybe the PCs evade the police by finding somewhere to sit and hide. Maybe they just go full out on the run. Or maybe they openly fight back and attack the cops after them. Hell, they could even stage a full riot in the city to draw attention away from themselves. The point is, I have no idea what they're going to do.

At the end of the day, when a player pipes up with an idea that's better then what you thought, the right thing to do is smile knowingly and say "Well, you guessed it," not shoot them down for it. Is railroading bad? To a point I suppose not. But whenever the players start to think that they really have no control over the game, and they're just along for the ride, you as a GM would be better off just writing a story and reading it to them outloud - at least then you wouldn't have to break every so often to roll some dice.