What's the problem with railroading?

[pemerton]

BotE, I agreed with most of your post but wanted to quibble with this:

The most useful definition for sandbox I've heard is something along the lines of, "Allowing players to choose the scenario." The opposite of that is, "Not allowing the players to choose the scenario." That's certainly a kind of railroading, but it's pretty much the lightest form of railroading possible.

If the GM sets up the scenario/situation, but is doing so based on the cues provided by the player(s) through character build, character background and prior actual play, then I don't think this is a railroad at all. It's just the GM doing his/her job in a non-exploration focused game.

 

[Beginning of the End]

If the GM sets up the scenario/situation, but is doing so based on the cues provided by the player(s) through character build, character background and prior actual play, then I don't think this is a railroad at all. It's just the GM doing his/her job in a non-exploration focused game.

I suppose it depends on what exactly you mean by "based on the cues provided by the players". But insofar as that isn't a code phrase meaning "he makes a scenario based on what the players chose to do last week" (or something close to it), it's still a form of railroading.

 

[Stoat]

This used to cause me all sorts of stress and difficulty. Then, one day, I realized I could have my cake and eat it too, by doing one simple thing: ask them.

This. This is the most important thing any DM can learn.

 

[pemerton]

I suppose it depends on what exactly you mean by "based on the cues provided by the players". But insofar as that isn't a code phrase meaning "he makes a scenario based on what the players chose to do last week" (or something close to it), it's still a form of railroading.

Accepting the following (implicit) characterisation of railroading:

Nothing if you're content with not having your character's choices and actions matter.

One way to make the players' choices, and their PCs' actions, matter, is to frame scenes/encounters/situations that respond to those choices and actions. As in the Paul Czege quote I posted upthread, this doesn't become railroading just because it's heavily metagamed.

For example: one of the players wants his PC to become a demonskin adept. I therefore decide that the next ruined temple the PCs investigate has a demon trapped inside it. This is not making a scenario based on what the players chose to do last week. It is making a scenario based on cues provided by players. It is not invalidating, or negating, any player choices or PC actions. It is, in fact, validating those choices. So where's the railroading?

 

[Dausuul]

The word "railroading" is used in two ways. The original meaning of the term describes a game in which the DM refuses to let the players affect the story in any way, negating their choices in heavy-handed fashion. The newer meaning refers to games in which the DM takes the lead in shaping the plot (as opposed to "sandboxes" where the players take the lead).

Approximately once per month, someone familiar with the new definition comes across people using the old definition, and posts a thread asking why people think railroading is bad.

Semantic warfare ensues.

 

[pemerton]

Dausuul, the confusing thing about "the DM takes the lead in shaping the plot" is that in any but the most radical D&D games the GM has primary responsibility for introducing non-PC game elements.

So the GM is nearly always going to have the greater influence on the direction the plot can go (if by "plot" we mean something like "interaction between game elements unfolding over time").

The difference I see between a sandbox and my preferred approach is that, in a sandbox, the GM places elements in the gameworld driven (more-or-less) by a coherent vision of the gameworld, and then the players explore that world using their PC as the vehicles. Whereas in my preferred approach, the GM places elements in the gameworld driven (more-or-less) by a desire to engage those concerns that the players have revealed through their PC building and their previous play.

In both approaches the GM has responsibility for placing the main game elements. In both approaches the players make choices that are affirmed. But the logic that governs the GM's work is different in each approach. Sandbox GMing is (roughly) worldbuilding. My sort of GMing is (roughly) situation building. I don't think either is a railroad under any (old or new) use of that term.

 

[francisca]

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?
--

Speaking for myself only, and not projecting my own experience onto the greater community, I can offer the following:

As a player, I hate the idea of being led around by the DM, and the bad guy getting away because he appears again in a later "chapter" in his story.

As a DM, I don't like being instructed by an adventure to lead the players along and/or make sure certain villains are allowed to escape. Sure, I could re-write something like DL1 to be more of a match for my style of play, but I might as well write something completely from scratch, as it wouldn't be much more work and satisfy the creative itch.

The joy for me as a player and DM is interacting with the game world and modifying it on the fly and crafting it between sessions. For me, this process is best enabled by a loose framework, with general ideas of who and what is where, with mere hints of general attitude. The players interact, the DM considers the situation and reacts, wash, rinse, repeat. Any story in the campaign is only visible in hindsight.

I dunno if that explains it to you, as I think it is a style and mindset thing, that you either get or don't. Its the same for me with a more narrative/storyteller approach. I just don't see the attraction, despite multiple discussions about this topic over the last 8 years and attempts to put it into practice at the table. I just don't get it, recognize that fact, and move on in my random/adaptive way I have been for 30 years.

 

[jmucchiello]

I suppose it depends on what exactly you mean by "based on the cues provided by the players". But insofar as that isn't a code phrase meaning "he makes a scenario based on what the players chose to do last week" (or something close to it), it's still a form of railroading.

No it isn't. It's only a railroad if they return to game this week and decide to go somewhere else and "somewhere else" ends up being the choice they made last week.

 

[Beginning of the End]

For example: one of the players wants his PC to become a demonskin adept. I therefore decide that the next ruined temple the PCs investigate has a demon trapped inside it. This is not making a scenario based on what the players chose to do last week. It is making a scenario based on cues provided by players. It is not invalidating, or negating, any player choices or PC actions. It is, in fact, validating those choices. So where's the railroading?

Nowhere?

Unless, of course, the GM forces the players to go to the ruined temple. Then it's railroading.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Is it possible you misread my original post? I'm not really sure, but it seems like you must have.

No it isn't. It's only a railroad if they return to game this week and decide to go somewhere else and "somewhere else" ends up being the choice they made last week.

OTOH, I'm sure that you did.

 

[DumbPaladin]

That´s a bit one-sided, don´t you think?
Methinks it comes down to knowing and agreeing it´s a railroad and maybe probing the boundaries.

Not really. I actually think this all boils down to the minutiae of semantics that was mentioned upthread.

There's nothing bad about a railroad. It can be used for good purposes.

When the DM DEMANDS that your character go to X, do Y, or accomplish Z, and strikes down reasonable and/or logical alternatives to X, Y, or Z ...

... You've just been railroaded. And that DM should really just play with himself. Double entendre probably intended.