D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Don Durito]

I was really responding to the comment that players who didn‘t make ‘meaningful choices’ are just ‘audience members’. That’s overly dismissive of a wide variety of creative input/action on player’s parts.

To be honest I don't think it's dismissive. I think it's basically just true by definition.

Making choices is how you interact with the game. If you're not doing that how are you not an audience member?

 

[Malmuria]

This is why I said earlier in the thread that there are two ways to look at railroading, from the perspective of DM practice, and the perspective of subjective player experience. Only the second is necessarily bad.

If I feel railroaded, then something has definitely gone wrong.

Oh now I disagree. Well, to each their own, but the idea that role of the dm is to sort of 'trick' players into following the linear path while still giving the appearance of agency is not a healthy dynamic, especially for the dm, who now is not just running a game but curating this experience for the players.

 

[Don Durito]

Oh now I disagree. Well, to each their own, but the idea that role of the dm is to sort of 'trick' players into following the linear path while still giving the appearance of agency is not a healthy dynamic, especially for the dm, who now is not just running a game but curating this experience for the players.

Huh?

All I'm saying is that if you're doing what you're doing and everyone is happy then you might as well keep doing it and not worry about if you're sinning.

I sure as hell wouldn't do it. To me seeing what unexpected things players do is the whole point of running a game.

 

[Bardic Dave]

I think of "railroading" as a bit of a moving target: what constitutes an unacceptable restriction on player choice will vary from table to table, and from player to player. There are a few best practice principles that I think can be useful no matter where you fall on the railroading continuum, however.

Some amount of gently prodding the party in the "right" direction by the DM is necessary—desirable even—in order for the game to not descend into total inaction and/or chaos. Players need some kind of feeling of forward motion, and DMs need an allowance for the fact they're only human and can't possibly provide a satisfying gaming experience for every conceivable direction the players might try.

However, a light hand is best and a little goes a long way. And when you absolutely must force a particular direction or outcome, if you can maintain the illusion of player choice by concealing your hand everyone will be better off.

As a DM, I aspire toward as sandboxy/freeform a game as I can muster. I welcome player creativity and deviations from the "ordained" "storyline", and am perfectly happy to go into uncharted waters on a player's whim. However, I also recognize that I have limits on my ability to improvise. It's a fine balance.

As a player, I loathe feeling like I have absolutely no ability to affect the outcome of a scenario. In a recent Dungeon World game I was playing, a plague victim (a monk at the local abbey) was turning into a horrific aberration before our eyes. Every conceivable cure we tried to concoct was stonewalled by the DM; everything from researching a cure at the abbey's library, to casting restorative magic, to summoning supernatural creatures skilled in the healing arts. Every avenue to gain more insight into the nature of the plague was stymied.

Finally, with heavy hearts we decided we had to dispatch the victim, but no, the abbott disallowed us from killing one of his order. Fine then, let's lock him in the cellar to prevent the eventual horrific aberration from escaping and murdering all the monks. The DM: "The abbey doesn't have a cellar". Ok, let's lock him in the abbot's study and post a sentry outside at all hours. The abbot was amenable to this.

Guess what happened? The sentry "fell asleep", and a novice monk disobeyed the abbot's orders and let the aberration out because he was curious. So we had to fight the aberration, which is the outcome we were trying to avoid, but was plainly the outcome the DM wanted.

Any single one of these "Nopes" from the DM would have been justifiable in isolation, but the sum total of having
EVERY single choice that might have led to a different outcome stymied was just too much for me. The two-ish hours of gameplay to get to this pre-ordained outcome felt like a waste of time. This felt like a particularly heavy handed instance of railroading and definitely crossed a line for me.

And yet, I have played through entire Pathfinder adventure paths before, and rarely felt railroaded. In those games, the DMs were able to successfully walk the tightrope and deliver on the promise of player choice, even though the broad strokes of the plot were entirely pre-ordained. It's definitely an interesting balancing act, and where you draw the line is ultimately a subjective judgment and a matter of personal preference.

 

[Malmuria]

Huh?

All I'm saying is that if you're doing what you're doing and everyone is happy then you might as well keep doing it and not worry about if you're sinning.

I sure as hell wouldn't do it. To me seeing what unexpected things players do is the whole point of running a game.

Maybe I misinterpreted. But yes, player unexpectedness is so much more fun. When I was 12 in the 2e era, I think the model was highly scripted linear adventures. Last time I was back home I found some of my homebrew adventures and I had even written boxed text for myself! I would get annoyed when my friends would just want to mess around and steal things. But now, that would be the most fun thing in the world. Yes, mess around! Kill the guards! now we got a story.

 

[Mallus]

To be honest I don't think it's dismissive. I think it's basically just true by definition.

Making choices is how you interact with the game. If you're not doing that how are you not an audience member?

Performing a fictional character is how you play the game. Giving them colorful personality, mannerisms, and style. Bonus points for an accent.

If you don’t do that, how are you even roleplaying?

(See what I did there? Also, it’s hard to imagine a game where the players make no choices. Even in the most linear of railroads)

 

[Don Durito]

Performing a fictional character is how you play the game. Giving them colorful personality, mannerisms, and style. Bonus points for an accent.

If you don’t do that, how are you even roleplaying?

By making choices. Funny voices are optional. I don't see how choices are.

(See what I did there? Also, it’s hard to imagine a game where the players make no choices. Even in the most linear of railroads)

Exactly.

Railroading tends to be experienced when choices are offered but are not meaningful.

If you just told me a story about a bunch of adventurers and their hijinks there would be no railroad. Boredom possibly, but not railroading.

 

[Malmuria]

Performing a fictional character is how you play with the game. Giving them colorful personality, mannerisms, and style. Bonus points for an accent.

If you don’t do that, how are you even roleplaying?

(See what I did there? Also, it’s hard to imagine a game where the players make no choices. Even in the most linear of railroads)

But the question is, does it matter. If you are playing, say, descent into avernus, does it matter if your character is a bard with a tragic backstory or an empathetic barbarian? A little bit, but ultimately if you finish that module you'll be able to compare notes with a different group and you will have largely followed the plot. And (from what I've read), you'll have done so by following the neon signposts the dm is laying out telling you where the next bit of "content" is. Whereas the PCs might want to say, "you know what, let's not go to literal hell" (seems rational?). If that choice is not available, then you are on your way to a railroad. And this is where the "social contract" of the table gets dicey, because your character wants to do A, but as a player you know your character should do B, because the dm bought the adventure and wants to run it.

 

[CleverNickName]

I’d really like to know. I keep seeing arguments about player choice and agency and railroading. And for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would defend railroading. Any advocates of railroading willing to explain why it’s good to do?

I haven't read through this thread, but off the top of my head I can only think of a handful of reasons why someone would need to use the railroad plot device.

The Players are Children. If your players are all under the age of 10, a fixed linear plotline (my definition of "railroad," yours is probably different) can really help keep the evening on track. You want your players to have fun playing make-believe, but you also want them to make it to the rest of the story before the end of the game. Thus, you will probably need to deploy some manner of a "railroad" plot. Not because you want to restrict anyone's fun, but because you want them to have a complete experience.

The Players are Behaving Like Children. Some players forget that the DM is supposed to be enjoying the game as well, and try to make things as difficult as possible for the Dungeon Master. If your players are the sort who will narrow their eyes, smirk, and say "Oh we will just see about that, Mister DM" whenever you introduce an adventure hook, a railroad might be the only way to get them to the dungeon in the first place so that the adventure can begin. (It might also be the only way to maintain a healthy blood pressure.)

The Story Is Too Convoluted. We've all done it before: created an enormous, interwoven, tangled mass of plots and subplots and intrigue and interwoven factions, and thrust it all upon our players in a single lump of exposition. And even if your players are the sort who will hang on to your every word, using yarn diagrams and post-it notes on the wall behind them, chances are they are going to miss that Obvious Hint (one of several) and miss a crucial part of the adventure (one of several). Unless you gently (or not-so-gently) direct them onto the right path, you can look forward to a long and frustrating night of players saying "ummmmmmm" to each other and staring at you expectantly.

We All Think Differently. I'm ADHD, and I'm just one of a handful of neurodivergent players in my gaming group. (Two of us are ADHD, another is dyslexic, and one is on the Autism spectrum.) I find myself wheeling off onto tangents easily, and getting distracted with things that don't matter, and getting frustrated with players that don't pick up on the things I think are obvious. A linear plot can sometimes be useful to keep me on track, and to ensure that the framework of the story stays intact.

TL;DR: railroads aren't everyone's cup of tea, but I think they have their place at the table.

 

[MGibster]

The way some people talk about railroading, you'd think the DM had shackled them to a gaming table in the basement.

If you know of a more reliable way to retain players then spit it out!