Saeviomagy
Adventurer
A railroad is only bad when you can see that the track doesn't go to your station and the conductor won't let you off.
Players: Does anyone else not mind railroading?
- Thread starter awesomeocalypse
- Start date
FireLance
Legend
Fundamentally, the whole railroad issue boils down to choices and consequences, and how important those choices and consequences are to the players.
Players will not mind if the DM railroads them through choices and to consequences that aren't important to them.
However, when the choices and consequences are important to them, the DM should give them meaningful choices that result in different outcomes, and make sure that the consequences of their choices are satisfyingly plausible. In other words, if there is something that they want to do, and they come up with a good plan to do it, there ought to be a good reason (whether immediately obvious or not) why it did not succeed.
What makes the issue difficult to tie down is that there is a whole lot of subjectivity in there. Different players may have different ideas of what choices and consequences are important. When the players do not get the outcome they want, different players will have different views on whether the reason for failure is satisfyingly plausible (if it is known) and different levels of trust that the DM has a satisfyingly plausible reason for failure (if it is not immediately obvious).
This is why, as several posters have commented, it is so important to ensure good communication and that everyone is on the same page. In particular, the DM should be quite upfront what choices the players will be allowed to make and what outcomes they are allowed to achieve in his campaign.
Players will not mind if the DM railroads them through choices and to consequences that aren't important to them.
However, when the choices and consequences are important to them, the DM should give them meaningful choices that result in different outcomes, and make sure that the consequences of their choices are satisfyingly plausible. In other words, if there is something that they want to do, and they come up with a good plan to do it, there ought to be a good reason (whether immediately obvious or not) why it did not succeed.
What makes the issue difficult to tie down is that there is a whole lot of subjectivity in there. Different players may have different ideas of what choices and consequences are important. When the players do not get the outcome they want, different players will have different views on whether the reason for failure is satisfyingly plausible (if it is known) and different levels of trust that the DM has a satisfyingly plausible reason for failure (if it is not immediately obvious).
This is why, as several posters have commented, it is so important to ensure good communication and that everyone is on the same page. In particular, the DM should be quite upfront what choices the players will be allowed to make and what outcomes they are allowed to achieve in his campaign.
Obryn
Hero
IMO, "railroad" has had its definition expanded past the point of usefulness by sandbox purists. 
If your DM isn't being willfully obstructionist to perfectly good solutions to the problems they've presented, it's probably not a railroad. If there are actual options where the player's decisions affect the plot, it's probably not a railroad.
There's a big difference between a path or a plotted adventure and actual railroading, IMO. And the only reason we're discussing this question is because the definition has been hijacked.
-O
If your DM isn't being willfully obstructionist to perfectly good solutions to the problems they've presented, it's probably not a railroad. If there are actual options where the player's decisions affect the plot, it's probably not a railroad.
There's a big difference between a path or a plotted adventure and actual railroading, IMO. And the only reason we're discussing this question is because the definition has been hijacked.
-O
To me, the question can be summed up simply: How does the DM react when the players (as players do) take an action which will lead them off the "rails?"
As an example, let's say the PCs run into a bumbling thief. The thief doesn't know it and neither do the PCs, but he's the last descendant of a demonic emperor, and he will later become the vessel for his evil ancestor and emerge as the BBEG of the campaign. The DM expects the PCs to befriend the thief and get some useful information, but instead they decide to kill him.
A) Change the direction of the campaign. The thief dies. The PCs don't get the information they were supposed to, and the demonic emperor remains imprisoned in the Abyss forever, never emerging to threaten the world.
B) Allow the PCs to change the flow of the current adventure, but tweak things a little so the campaign eventually gets back on track. The PCs don't get the information they were supposed to find, and the DM picks somebody else to be the last descendant of the demonic emperor.
C) Let the action appear to work, but rearrange things behind the scenes so that it ends up taking them along the rails after all. The PCs kill the thief, but find the information in a note on his body. Later, the demonic emperor calls in a few favors on the mortal plane to get the thief resurrected.
D) Throw up arbitrary, implausible roadblocks so that the PCs can't take the action. The thief, who has up till now been portrayed as a comical buffoon, turns out to be a 20th-level ninja master. He effortlessly defeats the PCs and announces the information over his shoulder as he walks away.
Option A) is the "sandbox" option; it gives players total freedom of choice and control, but can lead to an aimless-feeling campaign if the players are unable or unwilling to provide the motive force. Option B) is a common approach and IMO only a sandbox purist would object to it. Option C) is the "illusion of choice" approach, and there's debate as to whether it's an acceptable practice; I think it's fine as long as the DM is subtle about it, but others disagree. Option D) is what "railroading" has traditionally meant, and I've yet to meet anyone who was okay with it.
That's option D), and if you ask me, he's not offering the illusion of free will and control at all. He's openly stomping any attempt to deviate from The Plan. "Illusion of choice" means you get to do what you want, but somehow it always ends up taking you where the DM intended to go.
As an example, let's say the PCs run into a bumbling thief. The thief doesn't know it and neither do the PCs, but he's the last descendant of a demonic emperor, and he will later become the vessel for his evil ancestor and emerge as the BBEG of the campaign. The DM expects the PCs to befriend the thief and get some useful information, but instead they decide to kill him.
A) Change the direction of the campaign. The thief dies. The PCs don't get the information they were supposed to, and the demonic emperor remains imprisoned in the Abyss forever, never emerging to threaten the world.
B) Allow the PCs to change the flow of the current adventure, but tweak things a little so the campaign eventually gets back on track. The PCs don't get the information they were supposed to find, and the DM picks somebody else to be the last descendant of the demonic emperor.
C) Let the action appear to work, but rearrange things behind the scenes so that it ends up taking them along the rails after all. The PCs kill the thief, but find the information in a note on his body. Later, the demonic emperor calls in a few favors on the mortal plane to get the thief resurrected.
D) Throw up arbitrary, implausible roadblocks so that the PCs can't take the action. The thief, who has up till now been portrayed as a comical buffoon, turns out to be a 20th-level ninja master. He effortlessly defeats the PCs and announces the information over his shoulder as he walks away.
Option A) is the "sandbox" option; it gives players total freedom of choice and control, but can lead to an aimless-feeling campaign if the players are unable or unwilling to provide the motive force. Option B) is a common approach and IMO only a sandbox purist would object to it. Option C) is the "illusion of choice" approach, and there's debate as to whether it's an acceptable practice; I think it's fine as long as the DM is subtle about it, but others disagree. Option D) is what "railroading" has traditionally meant, and I've yet to meet anyone who was okay with it.
That's option D), and if you ask me, he's not offering the illusion of free will and control at all. He's openly stomping any attempt to deviate from The Plan. "Illusion of choice" means you get to do what you want, but somehow it always ends up taking you where the DM intended to go.
Last edited:
Oryan77
Adventurer
I had a friend beg me to DM him long ago. He made his character, I prepped the Eternal Boundary adventure and we sat down to game. There were about 3 plot hooks to use to pull players into the adventure. I went through all 3 completely different hooks with the player & he flat out ignored each one of them because "his character wouldn't care". I saw where this was going and I felt he made me waste my time prepping an adventure. So I put my dice back in the Crown Royal bag and said, "We're done here." I think we argued with each other for a bit, but I can't remember what we did instead. I just know I didn't DM him.
I don't mind railroading as long as I feel like I'm making my own choices even though the DM is playing the illusion game with me. I also believe in the gentleman's agreement; I understand the DM wrote or bought an adventure, and I'm going to latch on to a hook so he can run the adventure he meant to run. I'm not a selfish player that will ignore the hooks for the sole reason that my PC wouldn't care about the adventure. I'd rather play a different character so I'm not wasting our time and we can get to the fun part.
Now if I'm playing in an adventure and I'm trying to play through it by performing legitimate actions that may not be scripted in the adventure, and the DM railroads me because he can't think outside the box, then I get a little peeved if it is obvious. The unbeatable creature that suddenly appears to block my way is not cool. The NPC that warns me, "Ya know, it might not be a good idea to go that way, you could get yourself in a heep of trouble." would be a much better way to nudge me in the right direction.
If I don't listen to that NPC and I think my path is the best path to complete the adventure, then the DM needs to work his magic to correct my bad judgment and get me on the course that he can better deal with. If he's not good at thinking on the fly like that, then instead of railroading me in a cheesy way, I'd rather him be honest with me and say, "Hey man, you're going way off course here and I'm having a hard time dealing with it. You really don't want to go that way because it won't help you at all."
I don't mind railroading as long as I feel like I'm making my own choices even though the DM is playing the illusion game with me. I also believe in the gentleman's agreement; I understand the DM wrote or bought an adventure, and I'm going to latch on to a hook so he can run the adventure he meant to run. I'm not a selfish player that will ignore the hooks for the sole reason that my PC wouldn't care about the adventure. I'd rather play a different character so I'm not wasting our time and we can get to the fun part.
Now if I'm playing in an adventure and I'm trying to play through it by performing legitimate actions that may not be scripted in the adventure, and the DM railroads me because he can't think outside the box, then I get a little peeved if it is obvious. The unbeatable creature that suddenly appears to block my way is not cool. The NPC that warns me, "Ya know, it might not be a good idea to go that way, you could get yourself in a heep of trouble." would be a much better way to nudge me in the right direction.
If I don't listen to that NPC and I think my path is the best path to complete the adventure, then the DM needs to work his magic to correct my bad judgment and get me on the course that he can better deal with. If he's not good at thinking on the fly like that, then instead of railroading me in a cheesy way, I'd rather him be honest with me and say, "Hey man, you're going way off course here and I'm having a hard time dealing with it. You really don't want to go that way because it won't help you at all."
Celebrim
Legend
I think the term 'railroading' has been used so broadly and to cover so many things, that without specifically defining what you mean by it, it's hard to have a conversation.
For my part, I think most players are happy with the "narrow-wide-narrow" structure previously mentioned where the DM hooks them and 'brings the fun', and then after being hooked they may find there own path to the resolution. In fact, I'd say that whether they know it or not or admit it or not, that's what almost all players want. Players that really want to 'find there own fun' usually are players that really want 'narrow-wide-narrow' plots only with greater illusionism. That is, they want to find a classic adventure narrative in whatever direction that they go, which is in fact 'railroading'.
Likewise, I think that most players are happy with 'linear' adventures where a->b->c->d, provided that they don't get a steady diet of them. Most players want more freedom than that in between the hook and the resolution, but will go along with stories that have a naturally linear structure happily from time to time.
However, I don't personally feel railroading refers to either of those things. In my opinion, railroading refers to a number of techniques where the DM either elimenates player choice or creates the illusion of player choice when it is not in fact there.
So, some examples:
1) NPC's which are vastly more powerful than the players take control over them and force them to do various things.
2) There is a fork in the road, but regardless which direction the players take, the also go to location A first, and then location B if they go back and take the other fork. In fact, the PC's will get to location A even if they take neither path and just head off cross country.
3) When the PC's decide to do anything other than the one thing they are supposed to do, they are punished.
4) If the PC's decide to say no, something will come along and force them to say yes anyway. This includes situations where the PC's are accompanied by a vastly powerful NPC minder, who takes charge whenever the PC's don't do what the DM wants them to do.
5) The BBEG's hitpoints expand to fit the damage the PC's do, and/or hurting or downed PC's get blankets of protection thrown over them to ensure survival (ei, the bad guys ignore them or attacks on them always miss). Important NPC's reutinely violate the normal action sequence to escape, or are invulnerable to attacks in scenes before they are supposed to die.
For my part, I think most players are happy with the "narrow-wide-narrow" structure previously mentioned where the DM hooks them and 'brings the fun', and then after being hooked they may find there own path to the resolution. In fact, I'd say that whether they know it or not or admit it or not, that's what almost all players want. Players that really want to 'find there own fun' usually are players that really want 'narrow-wide-narrow' plots only with greater illusionism. That is, they want to find a classic adventure narrative in whatever direction that they go, which is in fact 'railroading'.
Likewise, I think that most players are happy with 'linear' adventures where a->b->c->d, provided that they don't get a steady diet of them. Most players want more freedom than that in between the hook and the resolution, but will go along with stories that have a naturally linear structure happily from time to time.
However, I don't personally feel railroading refers to either of those things. In my opinion, railroading refers to a number of techniques where the DM either elimenates player choice or creates the illusion of player choice when it is not in fact there.
So, some examples:
1) NPC's which are vastly more powerful than the players take control over them and force them to do various things.
2) There is a fork in the road, but regardless which direction the players take, the also go to location A first, and then location B if they go back and take the other fork. In fact, the PC's will get to location A even if they take neither path and just head off cross country.
3) When the PC's decide to do anything other than the one thing they are supposed to do, they are punished.
4) If the PC's decide to say no, something will come along and force them to say yes anyway. This includes situations where the PC's are accompanied by a vastly powerful NPC minder, who takes charge whenever the PC's don't do what the DM wants them to do.
5) The BBEG's hitpoints expand to fit the damage the PC's do, and/or hurting or downed PC's get blankets of protection thrown over them to ensure survival (ei, the bad guys ignore them or attacks on them always miss). Important NPC's reutinely violate the normal action sequence to escape, or are invulnerable to attacks in scenes before they are supposed to die.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
I love being railroaded! And I generally dislike "sandbox" games. Now, some sort of extreme version of railroading, where the DM not only expects you to kill Mr. X, but also demands you kill him in the exact way he had pre-planned, is obviously going too far. But that's hardly a typical example.
I remember the one time I was in a true sandbox game, in an evil party. Despite some great character interactions and bios, which my friends and i went on to base many future characters and campaigns off of, that game itself was overall bad. The DM was just so laid back, every time we finished doing a task, her next response was basically, "So what do you want to do now?" Party: "Umm...find a large town?" DM: "Ok." *makes up a town on the spot for us to find as we travel* "You find a town. Now what?" Party: "Umm...how about we try to take it over for ourselves? I guess..." DM: "Ok." *puts together a battle scenario so that our mid level party can go on to wipe out a small army singelhandedly* "Now what?" Party: "We don't know...Why don't you pick for once? We're just doing a bunch of random crap for no real purpose."
Maybe that format sounds fun to people here, but to me and my friends, we were bored out of our minds. We didn't like having to think of quests to do every single time, we just wanted an actual coherent plot to RP our characters around. We also didn't like not having any sort of pre-defined world, too much of was morphed or created as needed to fit our adventures.
Maybe it's just because my friends and I all generally got into D&D long after being introduced to RPGs through videogames, where I can safely say all of the best RPGs generally have MASSIVE railroading. Or, like in the case of tales of Symphonia, limited sandbox elements (namely, while you still mostly have to do items a-f to complete a particular portion of the game, you can choose the order to do them in) added little to the game and drastically hurt the plot development.
Like Doug said, if a railroad leads to exciting pre-scripted encounters and a rich storyline, I gladly hop aboard! I always find myself more creative when restricted to a limited framework, rather than just left to do whatever I please. Cool ideas just flow from my head much more easily in the former case. Even when I utterly despise the given framework, figuring out things to subvert the restrictions without technically breaking them is still a form of creativity.
I remember the one time I was in a true sandbox game, in an evil party. Despite some great character interactions and bios, which my friends and i went on to base many future characters and campaigns off of, that game itself was overall bad. The DM was just so laid back, every time we finished doing a task, her next response was basically, "So what do you want to do now?" Party: "Umm...find a large town?" DM: "Ok." *makes up a town on the spot for us to find as we travel* "You find a town. Now what?" Party: "Umm...how about we try to take it over for ourselves? I guess..." DM: "Ok." *puts together a battle scenario so that our mid level party can go on to wipe out a small army singelhandedly* "Now what?" Party: "We don't know...Why don't you pick for once? We're just doing a bunch of random crap for no real purpose."
Maybe that format sounds fun to people here, but to me and my friends, we were bored out of our minds. We didn't like having to think of quests to do every single time, we just wanted an actual coherent plot to RP our characters around. We also didn't like not having any sort of pre-defined world, too much of was morphed or created as needed to fit our adventures.
Maybe it's just because my friends and I all generally got into D&D long after being introduced to RPGs through videogames, where I can safely say all of the best RPGs generally have MASSIVE railroading. Or, like in the case of tales of Symphonia, limited sandbox elements (namely, while you still mostly have to do items a-f to complete a particular portion of the game, you can choose the order to do them in) added little to the game and drastically hurt the plot development.
Like Doug said, if a railroad leads to exciting pre-scripted encounters and a rich storyline, I gladly hop aboard! I always find myself more creative when restricted to a limited framework, rather than just left to do whatever I please. Cool ideas just flow from my head much more easily in the former case. Even when I utterly despise the given framework, figuring out things to subvert the restrictions without technically breaking them is still a form of creativity.
amysrevenge
First Post
That sums it up pretty good for me. As a real-world analogy, I've had two different frameworks around my graduate school MSc program to date. In the first year it was "Here's a basic idea. See you in a year" from my supervixor, and that was about it. For the second year it has been "Here's a tiny sub-project. See you in a week to talk about where to go next."
I fumbled about hopelessly for the first year, and have been thriving in the second year.
That said, I know (and work with) a large number of other students for whom the first option works perfectly well, so what does my experience really mean? lol
More or less agree.
My way of expressing this is that a railroad is perfectly fine, but the PC's should be able to get off at "welcome to the adventure" station and walk the rest of the way, under their own power.
However, I disagree that your #2 is railroading -- sometimes the game world can be shaped more like Thermopylae Pass and less like the open range. The PC's are free to choose not to follow the terrain/do the obvious, but just having a fairly obvious course of action that can (or cannot) be followed doesn't strike me as wrongbadfun.
And even #3 can work in certain scenarios -- the A4 slavers module is great fun. However, when I ran it, I didn't start with "you wake up in the dark", I started it with a scenario where the PC's COULD CHOOSE to attack a pirate/slaver ship -- which they did -- and could have made difficult saves to avoid the gaseous sleep poison the slavers used on them -- which they didn't. My point is, that approach makes it "something that happened to us in the course of adventuring" rather than "pure DM fiat with no choice and no chance".
Wik
First Post
I'm fine with the railroad, but there are a few exceptions.
First, I like to be able to go off track on small things, and expect the railroad to fit with that. IN other words, I want to have the option of taking that pirate ship we fought on, converting it, and using it as our base of options, WITHOUT this necessarily having been something the GM planned on. I want my PC to be able to befriend journalists or bartenders on the fly, and be able to use those contacts later on.
In short, I want to be able to act like I'm not in a railroad, and not get hit with "well, you can't do that because it would screw this up"
Second, if I'm in the railroad, I want to be important to its conclusion. I once played a game where the three PCs (my spellthief, a cleric, and a monk) were around 4th level, and our PCs followed four NPCs of 6th level for a while. And watched as they kicked butt. And then got destroyed by ogres. When we tried to run, the Ogres caught us. So when we fought, they defeated us. Gah.
Third, if it's known I'm on a railroad, I don't want to be hit with "non status quo" adventures and then told "well, not everything in this campaign world is built for your party to handle". Actually, yes, yes they are. And you established that early on. It's unfair to hit us with something we can't handle and then use that excuse when we get beaten. And yes, I have done this to my players, and yes, I regret it.
Fourth, I want the cool scenes to be even cooler. In a loose game where the GM reacts to the players, my "awesome cool stories" will consist of my player cleverly using the environment to best some orcs or gnolls or something. In a heavily railroaded game, that is not enough - I want stuff blowing up like mad... because you've planned for this stuff. It needs to be dramatic.
Finally, I don't want to follow a railroad simply because I'm required to. I HATE games where I make a character in front of the GM ("yeah, a tribal ranger sounds good to me...") and then get hit with large portions where I'm useless ("a tribal ranger sucks in this campaign, it's a city campaign..."). Or, to use an actual example that I've already touched on, I don't want to make a spellthief and then find out a few sessions later that magic is apparently really rare in this campaign.
First, I like to be able to go off track on small things, and expect the railroad to fit with that. IN other words, I want to have the option of taking that pirate ship we fought on, converting it, and using it as our base of options, WITHOUT this necessarily having been something the GM planned on. I want my PC to be able to befriend journalists or bartenders on the fly, and be able to use those contacts later on.
In short, I want to be able to act like I'm not in a railroad, and not get hit with "well, you can't do that because it would screw this up"
Second, if I'm in the railroad, I want to be important to its conclusion. I once played a game where the three PCs (my spellthief, a cleric, and a monk) were around 4th level, and our PCs followed four NPCs of 6th level for a while. And watched as they kicked butt. And then got destroyed by ogres. When we tried to run, the Ogres caught us. So when we fought, they defeated us. Gah.
Third, if it's known I'm on a railroad, I don't want to be hit with "non status quo" adventures and then told "well, not everything in this campaign world is built for your party to handle". Actually, yes, yes they are. And you established that early on. It's unfair to hit us with something we can't handle and then use that excuse when we get beaten. And yes, I have done this to my players, and yes, I regret it.
Fourth, I want the cool scenes to be even cooler. In a loose game where the GM reacts to the players, my "awesome cool stories" will consist of my player cleverly using the environment to best some orcs or gnolls or something. In a heavily railroaded game, that is not enough - I want stuff blowing up like mad... because you've planned for this stuff. It needs to be dramatic.
Finally, I don't want to follow a railroad simply because I'm required to. I HATE games where I make a character in front of the GM ("yeah, a tribal ranger sounds good to me...") and then get hit with large portions where I'm useless ("a tribal ranger sucks in this campaign, it's a city campaign..."). Or, to use an actual example that I've already touched on, I don't want to make a spellthief and then find out a few sessions later that magic is apparently really rare in this campaign.
