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

[Paul Farquhar]

That's just plain false. If I remove your choice and you can't see it, you are still on those rails. It's just a smooth ride.


That's absurd. You can't turn yourself into nuclear bomb, either. Choice isn't about simple compass directions.

The dungeon doesn't prevent you from going anywhere in the world you could have gone prior to going into the dungeon. You just walk out and go. Before I went into the dungeon I could go anywhere I wanted in the world, including the dungeon. After I enter the dungeon I can go anywhere in the world I want, including the exit. No choice has been removed from my PC.

Some dungeons do not give you the freedom to simply leave. The Hidden Shine of Tamoachan, not only prevents you going back out the way you came in, it forces you to keep moving forwards.

Does that make Hidden Shrine a railroad? I prefer not to deal in absolutes (leave that to the Sith). It's certainly more railroady than the an average dungeon, which is, in turn, more railroady than the average wilderness.

But the worst railroading I have seen is (unsurprisingly) in a computer game - BG2 Throne of Bhaal to be precise. I spotted immediately that a certain character was the villain, but was prevented from striking her down with my sword by the game engine itself, which kept me locked in "dialogue mode" then trotted me out the building.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Putting silliness aside for a moment, I kind of talked about this earlier. Some people only use the term "railroad" when the rails are visible. If you can't see the rails it's not a railroad.

Dungeons remove choice - you can't go north because it is solid stone.

Strongly disagree. Constraints are not the same as forcing outcomes. If you're going to call a constraint railriading, we've moved past any usefulness to the term. Railroading involves forcing outcomes, not framing, and dungeon walls are framing, not outcomes. So long as players are free to address the constraints, you aren't railroading. Frex, passwall can overcome the constraint of a dungeon wall, it just has a higher price than other options.

 

[GrahamWills]

"Railroad" is a term used by a person for whom the constraints on player agency have become too onerous. It's entirely subjective and just a way of defining a personal preference on the continuum.

There will always be constraints on players, even in the most freeform system, because it's just not fun to play in a world where anyone can say "I persuade all the enemies to submit to me and we move on". Even if there are no rules, there will be social constraints that limit acceptable player actions.

On the other end, I've played in (fortunately very few) games where the GM describes what the situation is, pauses for minor input, and then goes on to describe what happens to the players.

The line you draw and call it a "railroad" is just a point on the continuum that beyond which you find constraints unacceptable. Conceptually there might be another point at the other end of the scale where it's too unconstrained -- call it "too freeform" or "no longer a game", but in general we don't worry much about that as it seems a rare problem. Over-controlling GMs are more an issue than under-controlling GMs.

It's also not an absolute. It can vary highly based on genre. For example, in BLUEBEARD'S BRIDE, you have very strong constraints. You must enter rooms one at a time. You cannot leave a room without fulfilling certain conditions. For each room you must decide a philosophical position. It is by far the most constrained RPG I have played in. But it's not a railroad because the constraints are appropriate for the genre and make the game work. On the other hand, if I'm playing in a game described as a sand-box game, even minimal constraints feel like railroading, because the expectation is that you can go anywhere and try anything.

Honestly, it just feels like "railroad" describing an RPG is about the same sort of term as "too much cinnamon" is for describing a recipe. It varies depending on what you're trying to produce, and people have different points at which they say "too much".

"Hey Bob, how are you enjoying Jill's new 13th Age game?" -- "It's not bad, but a little too much cinnamon for my taste"

 

[Maxperson]

Some dungeons do not give you the freedom to simply leave. The Hidden Shine of Tamoachan, not only prevents you going back out the way you came in, it forces you to keep moving forwards.

Yes. SOME dungeons CAN be railroads. With a dungeon like the Hidden Shrine, The World's Largest Dungeon, Undermountain, etc., did the players choose to go in knowing that they couldn't easily leave? If yes, no railroad. If no and the DM led them there, I'd call that a railroad.

Dungeons in general, though, are not railroads.

But the worst railroading I have seen is (unsurprisingly) in a computer game - BG2 Throne of Bhaal to be precise. I spotted immediately that a certain character was the villain, but was prevented from striking her down with my sword by the game engine itself, which kept me locked in "dialogue mode" then trotted me out the building.

Most computer RPG games are railroads. You are highly limited in what you can do by the programming and story.

 

[CleverNickName]

A railroad usually involves a train traveling on a single track, as it moves from one station to the next. A train engineer makes sure the train arrives at each station safely and on time. Passengers don't get to drive the train, they all trust the train engineer to make sure they arrive at each station safely and on time.

A sandbox is usually an enclosed area full of clean sand, where people can make sandcastles to suit their individual preferences but still in an organized way. The builders trust each other to make sure nobody's sandcastle gets trampled and everyone shares the tools they need, but they never leave the box.

Both are excellent metaphors for how to play the game. Everyone's preferences will vary, but I think I like to spend Levels 1-3 in the sandbox, then get on the Adventure Path Express train to somewhere more interesting. Around Level 10-11, I'll probably want to get off the train and sandbox a little more to get familiar with my mid-level abilities, then catch the next train to Exciting Conclusion-Ville.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A railroad usually involves a train traveling on a single track, as it moves from one station to the next. A train engineer makes sure the train arrives at each station safely and on time. Passengers don't get to drive the train, they all trust the train engineer to make sure they arrive at each station safely and on time.

A sandbox is usually an enclosed area full of clean sand, where people can make sandcastles to suit their individual preferences but still in an organized way. The builders trust each other to make sure nobody's sandcastle gets trampled and everyone shares the tools they need, but they never leave the box.

Both are excellent metaphors for how to play the game. Everyone's preferences will vary, but I think I like to spend Levels 1-3 in the sandbox, then get on the Adventure Path Express train to somewhere more interesting. Around Level 10-11, I'll probably want to get off the train and sandbox a little more to get familiar with my mid-level abilities, then catch the next train to Exciting Conclusion-Ville.

One of the most infuriating things however is the combination of sandbox and railroad. Like you in theory can do anything, but there actually is some preplanned things that the GM would like you to do. However as they don't want to railroad, they do not properly direct you to them and rest of the sandbox is pretty empty and boring. So you just aimlessly wander in the sand until you eventually manage to accidentally stumble upon the train station. This was called pixel-bitching back in the day (though I dislike the term.) I'd take proper rails over that any day.

 

[Helldritch]

Tomoachan is not a railroad. You are "forced" to get in as you walk in search of it. Then you can follow the adventure or, in the great cental room, you can take the hole in the ceiling via levitation (and kill the three apes that are sure to attack you). I had a group doing that. They went straight to the top of the temple and avoided about half the adventure itself. A railroad advenwould have prevented just that.

The nice thing about having rules for it is, though, is in setting the expectations. People know what can happen, and where the decisions lie and who has what agency before you begin.

Like with that Barbarian - knowing the rules, the player should not expect the barbarian to become a premier diplomat, and the GM doesn't have to figure out how to make it happen. Write that larger, and you have the value of rules for arcs.

And I can imagine Roran the Librarian. Diplomat of the White bear barbarian clan. He's the kind of diplomat with a big club and the club is not a social gathering... Just a few key skills to get with a feat. And if diplomacy fails, a club the size of a man can always maul your point into the brain of the other diplomat...

By their nature published adventures have to be at least somewhat railroady. The prewritten text simply cannot possibly cover all things the PCs could potentially do.

Now it depends on the GM how that works in actual play; a good GM can improvise new stuff when needed even if the module lacks it. But if playing a published adventure with an inexperienced GM players shouldn't be too upset if some railroading happens from time to time. Furthermore, stating the premise and expecting players to abide by it is not railroading. If the module is 'The Caves of Irksome Doom' then deciding to buy a boat and go fishing instead of accepting an adventure hook that directs you toward the said caves really isn't cool player behaviour.

Generally I feel that GM should have active role in directing the game, and it is perfectly fine and even preferable for them to push the players in certain directions. It just needs to be be done carefully so that the players do not feel restrained. The GM's job is to make sure that the players are having fun, and sometimes that may require nudging them to the right direction. And if this can be done so that the players do not notice all the better.

Published adventures are not railroads. Forcing the players into them or preventing them from leaving said adventures is a railroad. The same thing can be said from personal adventures too. The rest is simply DMing. Prepare, know your player, prepare and be ready to improvise a lot. I fully agree with you on the rest of your post.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Published adventures are not railroads. Forcing the players into them or preventing them from leaving said adventures is a railroad. The same thing can be said from personal adventures too. The rest is simply DMing. Prepare, know your player, prepare and be ready to improvise a lot. I fully agree with you on the rest of your post.

It is not a binary. But published adventures tend to be rather scripted which easily leads to railroadyness, especially in hands of an inexperienced GM. I said this as this thread was started by a publisher using their three-path adventure as an example. A published adventure cannot contain information about infinite number of paths that the characters could theoretically take, three is already plenty.

 

[prabe]

It is not a binary. But published adventures tend to be rather scripted which easily leads to railroadyness, especially in hands of an inexperienced GM. I said this as this thread was started by a publisher using their three-path adventure as an example. A published adventure cannot contain information about infinite number of paths that the characters could theoretically take, three is already plenty.

I think that published event-based adventures are more likely to feel like a railroad than published location-based adventures, precisely because the events are likely to need to happen in their ordained sequence. Someone homebrewing an event-based adventure might have more freedom to adjust, or might just feel that way since they're writing it themselves.

 

[Umbran]

And I can imagine Roran the Librarian. Diplomat of the White bear barbarian clan. He's the kind of diplomat with a big club and the club is not a social gathering... Just a few key skills to get with a feat. And if diplomacy fails, a club the size of a man can always maul your point into the brain of the other diplomat...

I did say premier diplomat. That role needs Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma based skills. Being particularly good at them calls for not just proficiency, but some bonus from stats. So, you have a character that wants positive bonuses in at least four out of six stats, is using up feats to get some of this ability.

Compared to a Charisma-based caster (who has supporting magic) or a skill-monkey rogue, Roran will have trouble keeping up, which probably keeps him out of the "premier" spot. And, in the meantime, trying to do that he's chewing up his point buy stats and his background and feats in ways that don't support using that club...

You'd do better to model Roran as a bard with barbarian styling than as a barbarian class.