D&D 5E What does "Railroading" actually mean!? Discount Code on Page 8

[Paul Farquhar]

How do they differ?

Firstly, there are really two types of things people mean when they talk about a railroad. One is bad and the other is invisible. The bad kind is when the players have no agency. They must encounter a set series of events in a set pattern, if they try to do anything else the DM blocks them.

The other is when the fixed points follow naturally (many people would not call this a railroad, but some would). Successive rooms in a dungeon is the obvious example, but the plot points in Castle Amber are to - it would simply make no sense for events to play out in a different order.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Firstly, there are really two types of things people mean when they talk about a railroad. One is bad and the other is invisible. The bad kind is when the players have no agency. They must encounter a set series of events in a set pattern, if they try to do anything else the DM blocks them.

The other is when the fixed points follow naturally (many people would not call this a railroad, but some would). Successive rooms in a dungeon is the obvious example, but the plot points in Castle Amber are to - it would simply make no sense for events to play out in a different order.

But it could make sense still if the plot points were replaced by other plot points. Instead of escaping the strange world, the PCs decide to conqueror it, for example.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But it could make sense still if the plot points were replaced by other plot points. Instead of escaping the strange world, the PCs decide to conqueror it, for example.

I deliberately didn't include "escaping the world" in my list of Castle Amber plot points, because that isn't fixed. However, it would make no sense for the players to decide to spend the rest of their lives in one room of the house - eventually they will either leave or die.

 

[kieran_of_the_dark_peaks]

Just a repost for anyone that wants it!

As a massive THANK YOU for everyone who has taken part in this discussion, which has been really intelligent and insightful for me! I'm pleased to announce that people who have taken part can use this discount code to get $2.00 off the Blizzard of Axe and Sword. That changes the prices from $6.99 to $4.99 - just over the price of a coffee. It's one way for you to know if I avoided the sin of railroading!

Dungeon Masters Guild - Order Contents

www.dmsguild.com

This code is limited to the first 10 people who take advantage - if it doesn't work after that, I'm afraid that someone got there first!

 

[Neonchameleon]

J. M. Straczynski had some interesting things to say about heroic narratives. When we start reading Heroic/Epic fantasy (which Babylon 5 was) we pretty much know it will end with the heroes winning. However, the uncertainty comes from what price the heroes will have to pay in order to win.

This same wriggle room can be used to make the actions of the players more meaningful in a narrative-driven D&D adventure. Sure, the end of the world will probably be averted, but at what cost?

The problem here is that D&D's mechanics inherently lead away from this type of storytelling. The main form of combat consequence is hit point loss, and hit points are ephemeral and can be recovered by resting for long enough. There are basically no injury rules. Advancement is almost on rails; you level up in your class which you picked when you started your character and unless you multiclass (which is rare and mechanically disincentivised by 5e). Basically since 1985 there haven't been social status rules in D&D used by default, and they went entirely in 2000. There are no mechanical rules for connections. And finally even death lacks some of its sting as resurrection is part of the game and after a certain level is cheap and has relatively few consequences.

As mentioned by @Aldarc, PbtA games like Apocalypse World, Fate powered games, and other popular modern indie games are built round the idea of success-with-consequences and mechanical consequences piling up and having more of an effect than numbers ticking down to zero in a bar that is easy to refil.

 

[Hussar]

Certain fixed events happen in a fixed sequence - it's a railroad.

No, it really isn't.

Linear, maybe, but, certainly not railroading.

 

[Helldritch]

The problem here is that D&D's mechanics inherently lead away from this type of storytelling. The main form of combat consequence is hit point loss, and hit points are ephemeral and can be recovered by resting for long enough. There are basically no injury rules. Advancement is almost on rails; you level up in your class which you picked when you started your character and unless you multiclass (which is rare and mechanically disincentivised by 5e). Basically since 1985 there haven't been social status rules in D&D used by default, and they went entirely in 2000. There are no mechanical rules for connections. And finally even death lacks some of its sting as resurrection is part of the game and after a certain level is cheap and has relatively few consequences.

As mentioned by @Aldarc, PbtA games like Apocalypse World, Fate powered games, and other popular modern indie games are built round the idea of success-with-consequences and mechanical consequences piling up and having more of an effect than numbers ticking down to zero in a bar that is easy to refil.

I simply disagree. I played games where the players were playing the offsprings of their characters. I have characters that sacrificed themselves so others could go on. D&D can be the story you want because the story you want needs no rules. You do not need a mechanical rule to make connections. You do not need rules to use social status. In fact, I see rules as guidelines for combat. The rest is up to the players and the DM as to what type of story they want to tell.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I simply disagree. I played games where the players were playing the offsprings of their characters. I have characters that sacrificed themselves so others could go on. D&D can be the story you want because the story you want needs no rules. You do not need a mechanical rule to make connections. You do not need rules to use social status. In fact, I see rules as guidelines for combat. The rest is up to the players and the DM as to what type of story they want to tell.

I didn't say it was impossible. I said D&D's mechanics lead away from that sort of thing. What you did you did - but the D&D mechanics themselves did not encourage it, but instead you had to work round them.

As for "D&D can be the story you want because the story you want needs no rules", stories actually do need rules such as cause and effect and knowing what to weight. And a game that generates story well will do it with a lot less pre-plotting than one where I have to force it in to line because it does nothing.

You don't need a hammer to hammer in a nail - you can do it with a rock. But a hammer is going to be much easier and do the job much faster. In D&D the rules basically are rules for combat (and they minimise the consequences of combat). This doesn't make this the best way to do things and certainly doesn't make it the only way to do things.

 

[Coroc]

Railroad:

Londinum Steampunk edition?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The problem here is that D&D's mechanics inherently lead away from this type of storytelling. The main form of combat consequence is hit point loss

I'm pretty sure JMS didn't mean loss of hp when he spoke of "price". He is talking about things from ranging civilian casualties (such as the bombardment of the Narn homeworld) to the loss of a soul (Londo Mollari). There is nothing in the rules of 5e that prevents any of that.