D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Stalker0]

Some good discussion on here. So I want to review the "tiers" of railroading:

The Campaign
The DM has planned a certain style of campaign, and expects players to design characters to fit that campaign. Aka, no playing the evil death cleric if this is a goody two shoes kind of campaign.

If the DM has presented this right up front, I think its a reasonable expectation for players to create characters that "work" in that campaign. If the character is having to be "constantly convinced" to go along with the threads the DM is proposing.... than that is a failure of the player to make a workable character.

Yes.... players have been railroaded into a set of choices, even if the choices are still fairly broad, but I would say this is a reasonable railroad.

The Adventure
Within the campaign are a series of adventures....and the amount of "railroading" here depends on the style of the campaign. Some campaigns are completely "sandbox".... in these campaigns, the players are pretty much running the show, and the DM is expected to either have a lot of options planned or improvise well enough to adapt to those choices. In this context, players "forced" into a narrow direction is a legitimate railroad issue.

A middle ground "soft railroad" I have used as a DM in these campaigns. When we hit a point where its time for the players to choose, I ask them to make their choice when the current session is over before the next one....and agree to stick with that choice. That way I can properly prepare for what they want to do. The players have still chosen the path, but it gives the DM a way to still focus their efforts.

Then there are campaigns that have a more railroaded structure. One of my favorite campaign constructs is the "party works for an organization that gives out missions". That way as the DM I have very strong control over the adventures the players do, but in a way that works completely within the narrative structure. As long as the missions are interesting the players have a good time and don't feel railroaded... in fact I have found that as my group has gotten older and real life taken over....this is their preferred structure. They ultimately don't want to think too much and are happy to be given a mission that all of them innately in character agree to (aka no in-fighting about where to go).

The Plot
Kind of the glue between adventures and campaign, but can also be thought of as "how much the players reinforce or disrupt the current flow of events".

I find this is where a lot of the "railroads go wrong" can occur. As a DM you often work hard to create XYZ villain and scheme and all of this stuff, and then your players do something so crazy, so unexpected....and the damn dice just work... and your plot is "destroyed". Its very frustrating at times, and the impulse can be to repair it, to get things back on track just the way you want it..... and that is the true destructive railroad.

The players must feel like their actions matter, and so how much the players feel railroaded both depends on what plot changes the DM makes, but also how those changes are presented.

For example, the DM had a BBEG planned.... the party kills them much earlier than expected. The DM might be tempted to bring the BBEG back in some way. If you just do that....players are going to feel completely railroaded. But for example if you have an ally of the BBEG join the players because "they proved the BBEG is weak and unworthy to follow"....that's cool. If the players gain some cool item from the BBEG's destruction that they now get to have fun with....than that's an impact.

You can change your plot a lot or a little depending on player's actions, but if you are going to do it a little you need to ensure you present to the players how key their actions were to that change....they need to feel that are the ones that pushed some thing in motion, and aren't constantly helpless before the whims of fate.

The Encounter
Above this was noted as the "Quantum Ogre" problem. Imo this problem is much less severe than people think it is.... because players do not have the information to feel slighted in most cases.

For example, you set up two tunnels....one leading to the McGuffin, the other to a magical pool. The players use their skills to suss out which tunnel has the McGuffin and go for it. The DM may have planned for the Ogre in the other tunnel, but now switches it to McGuffin tunnel. Imo that is not a railroad at all.... the players choice still mattered, the DM is just ensuring some fun and challenge along the way as is their job. Now if the players were able to make certain checks or use abilities that let them know where the ogre should be....and the ogre is in the other tunnel "just because".... that can lead to problems.

Aka its just a matter of degrees and presentation. The DM could even take this a step further, the two tunnels are basically identical and the players are not able to suss out which one is the McGuffin. They choose a tunnel.... but whichever one they choose they DM makes that the magical pool tunnel. Is that a railroad.... technically yes, but the players don't know or probably care. Now if the players had rolled impossible checks on their skills and the DM still gave no indication..... that's a little more suspect. And if the DM uses this trick in EVERY dungeon, so the players never short cut to the thing....again more suspect. But used in moderation its a perfectly reasonable trick for DMs to ensure a good flow to the adventure and fun for the players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the player agrees to stay on the plot of the module or that the DM should engage in illusion of choice to certain ends, the player is by definition not being railroaded. To railroad someone means to force them into doing something. Once the DM has their agreement, they're not being forced and thus not being railroaded.

And I've hit people who disagree. As I mentioned, I've seen people who consider any campaign where the PCs have to, on occasion, follow orders a railroad.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I agree with Stalker0 except for the Quantum Orge problem. Mostly because I feel it's something you might be able to do once, but it's not something you should rely on or do commonly, as while it sucks not to see something you prepped go unused, each time you use the Quantum Orge, the more likely people will figure it out.

Perhaps it is a more theoretical problem than a practical, but I think it depends a lot on the GM's intent. Improvising on the spot can work well and increase the fun value, but that should be for both sides. But trying to force fights and forcing encounters could indicate a GM wants certain things to happen because they must and can lead to inflexiability, choices not mattering and potentially quite a bit less fun for players.

 

[Stalker0]

But trying to force fights and forcing encounters could indicate a GM wants certain things to happen because they must and can lead to inflexiability, choices not mattering and potentially quite a bit less fun for players.

I think a common disconnect that can occur between DMs and Players.

As a DM, I think there is a natural desire to challenge the party. You make encounters, and so you want those encounters to "matter". So when players curb stomp something this can make you feel the effort was "wasted" and so want to fight against that happening.

However, with increased DM experience I find nearly all players enjoy curb stomping some of the time. That encounters that a DM may feel is a waste are actually some of the most memorable for players. As always its a question of degrees, if everything is a cakewalk then it gets boring, but if everything is a major challenge players never get to appreciate how strong they really are.

 

[overgeeked]

To view it charitably, I'd assume he's a person who views the other approaches in a very negative light and is trying to understand why others don't, but still has to ask the question through the framework he views it in.

Being told a story isn't the same thing as playing role-playing game. As a player I get to do one thing, control my character. The DM controls the world, setting, NPCs, monsters, plots, hooks, threads, environment, seasons, calendar, sun, moon, and stars. The player only controls their character. If the DM removes the player's ability to control their character, i.e. removes meaningful choices, then there's no reason for the player to be at the table. I don't see how anyone could view being invited to play a role-playing game only to be denied the ability to actually play as a positive. It might be common at a lot of tables, that doesn't mean it's good.

That's not me complaining about "badwrongfun" (what an absurdly stupid conversation stopping nonsense phrase that is), it's me wondering why DMs would intentionally remove the one vector of input that players have in a supposedly cooperative role-playing game and why players would accept that. Railroading is literally removing the cooperative element of play. The player has control over exactly one thing, their character. Yet an apparently common and beloved mode of "play" is for the DM to wrest control of the PC from the player and simply dictate a story to the player. Without control over that character, that role, it ceases to be a role-playing game and becomes storytime with dice. That's certainly a valid pastime, but we shouldn't pretend it's role-playing.

 

[payn]

So its not badwrongfun going on here, just no true Scotsmen.

 

[overgeeked]

So its not badwrongfun going on here, just no true Scotsmen.

LOL.

So explain to me how it's a role-playing game if the player isn't allowed to play their role.

 

[overgeeked]

You seem to be defining railroading so broadly that any instance where the DM has any meaningful input in the game becomes railroading. That's not what railroading is. The Alexandrian defines railroading thus: railroads happen when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome. I would define it as the DM removing meaningful and consequential choices from the player. Neither definition really applies to most of what you're calling railroading below.

Some good discussion on here. So I want to review the "tiers" of railroading:

The Campaign
The DM has planned a certain style of campaign, and expects players to design characters to fit that campaign. Aka, no playing the evil death cleric if this is a goody two shoes kind of campaign.

If the DM has presented this right up front, I think its a reasonable expectation for players to create characters that "work" in that campaign. If the character is having to be "constantly convinced" to go along with the threads the DM is proposing.... than that is a failure of the player to make a workable character.

Yes.... players have been railroaded into a set of choices, even if the choices are still fairly broad, but I would say this is a reasonable railroad.

I absolutely would not call that railroading. Limiting character creation choices in broad strokes isn't railroading. You're not completely removing meaningful, consequential choices from the player. Even drastically limiting choices, like say humans only, still isn't railroading. For character creation to be reduced to a railroad the DM would have to supply pre-generated characters.

The Adventure
Within the campaign are a series of adventures....and the amount of "railroading" here depends on the style of the campaign. Some campaigns are completely "sandbox".... in these campaigns, the players are pretty much running the show, and the DM is expected to either have a lot of options planned or improvise well enough to adapt to those choices. In this context, players "forced" into a narrow direction is a legitimate railroad issue.

A middle ground "soft railroad" I have used as a DM in these campaigns. When we hit a point where its time for the players to choose, I ask them to make their choice when the current session is over before the next one....and agree to stick with that choice. That way I can properly prepare for what they want to do. The players have still chosen the path, but it gives the DM a way to still focus their efforts.

They have a choice and are allowed to make it. You then prep the content they chose. Unless you prep the same content regardless of their choice, then it's not railroading. They have a meaningful, consequential choice. That's the opposite of railroading.

The Encounter
Above this was noted as the "Quantum Ogre" problem. Imo this problem is much less severe than people think it is.... because players do not have the information to feel slighted in most cases.

For example, you set up two tunnels....one leading to the McGuffin, the other to a magical pool. The players use their skills to suss out which tunnel has the McGuffin and go for it. The DM may have planned for the Ogre in the other tunnel, but now switches it to McGuffin tunnel. Imo that is not a railroad at all.... the players choice still mattered, the DM is just ensuring some fun and challenge along the way as is their job. Now if the players were able to make certain checks or use abilities that let them know where the ogre should be....and the ogre is in the other tunnel "just because".... that can lead to problems.

Aka its just a matter of degrees and presentation. The DM could even take this a step further, the two tunnels are basically identical and the players are not able to suss out which one is the McGuffin. They choose a tunnel.... but whichever one they choose they DM makes that the magical pool tunnel. Is that a railroad.... technically yes, but the players don't know or probably care. Now if the players had rolled impossible checks on their skills and the DM still gave no indication..... that's a little more suspect. And if the DM uses this trick in EVERY dungeon, so the players never short cut to the thing....again more suspect. But used in moderation its a perfectly reasonable trick for DMs to ensure a good flow to the adventure and fun for the players.

I disagree. The players being unaware of the railroad doesn't preclude it from being a railroad. The DM is removing meaningful, consequential choice from the players. That's railroading.

 

[Cadence]

Being told a story isn't the same thing as playing role-playing game. As a player I get to do one thing, control my character. The DM controls the world, setting, NPCs, monsters, plots, hooks, threads, environment, seasons, calendar, sun, moon, and stars. The player only controls their character. If the DM removes the player's ability to control their character, i.e. removes meaningful choices, then there's no reason for the player to be at the table. I don't see how anyone could view being invited to play a role-playing game only to be denied the ability to actually play as a positive. It might be common at a lot of tables, that doesn't mean it's good.

That's not me complaining about "badwrongfun" (what an absurdly stupid conversation stopping nonsense phrase that is), it's me wondering why DMs would intentionally remove the one vector of input that players have in a supposedly cooperative role-playing game and why players would accept that. Railroading is literally removing the cooperative element of play. The player has control over exactly one thing, their character. Yet an apparently common and beloved mode of "play" is for the DM to wrest control of the PC from the player and simply dictate a story to the player. Without control over that character, that role, it ceases to be a role-playing game and becomes storytime with dice. That's certainly a valid pastime, but we shouldn't pretend it's role-playing.

Does the picture you have of the railroady DMs let you know what the campaign is like in session 0 so you can make one that might fit with the theme?

Should a DM be able to say no to a player who wants an evil character who steals from the party?

Should the DM just roll along with it when one of the players pretty much always once to split off from the party and almost never picks up on the hints offered?

Does your pictured railroady DM let you decide whether you're going to attack or talk to the "monsters" you encounter? Do they let you decide what actions to take and what resources to expend?

Does having a prepared BBEG mean it's a railroad since they know where the final stop is?

 

[Stalker0]

I disagree. The players being unaware of the railroad doesn't preclude it from being a railroad. The DM is removing meaningful, consequential choice from the players. That's railroading.

This is where I will fundamentally disagree with you. If the players don't feel they are being railroaded....then effectively no railroading has occurred.

Player perception is everything in dnd, which is why white room theory analysis often falls short. If the players feel like their actions have mattered....than to them the game is a success....regardless of the "trickery" used behind the scenes.