D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Thomas Shey]

The idea of generic encounters and main events implies a particular sort of play, where there’s Main Content and Side Content instead of just Content.

If you don't think a lot of people aren't going to see it that way whether you intended it or not, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the hallmarks of sandbox play is that the world reacts to the PCs choices. So it's not just that they can choose options A, B, and C, but that if they choose A something still happens at B and C, and this is communicated to the players. For example, maybe there is a timer, and if they choose A, B is not longer available. Or clearing out section of megadungeon A means that the creatures from C move into location A. etc.

I think the "this is communicated to the players" is far from a given. It can very well be that they never hear anything more about it depending on what they do next.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Given all this talk of simplifying and getting away from canned examples with too many assumptions and such...fine. Let's talk in the absolute simplest, non-specific-example means we possibly can.

The DM offers a choice. This choice seems to matter to some degree. But the DM has decided in advance* that, absolutely without regard for whatever choice the players make, one and only one consequence will result. It is not possible, even in principle, for the players to get a different consequence, so long as they continue to play the game up to the point of that consequence occurring.

Is this railroading? Is this good? Is this likely to produce fun? Will DMs try to hide this from their players? Would players have less fun if they realized this was being done?

It does sound like a simple case of railroading.

"Good". Have a definition of "good" in this context? Because without that it seems impossible to answer.

Whether it produces fun is almost impossible to determine without immensely more information about the consequences the GM plans and the tastes of the group.

Hiding it from the players--I'd expect probably in most cases, and because its assumed in most cases that it would be less fun if they know it. Neither of these is completely a given, however.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure if you're serious? But...yes, restricting players to one course of action is railroading. And no, world-building and designing adventure locations or scenarios is not railroading.

I still feel like you must be pulling my leg, though.

Okay, so if I tell players that they don't find a mcguffin in place A because I just decided it's in place B, this is railroading. But, if I decided this last week, and the same thing happens, it's just adventure design, and not railroading.

At the table, the exact same thing happens. It happens for the same reason -- the GM made a decision. The difference is just when the GM made that decision. Yet, to you, one is railroading and the other is just good play. Do I have this correct?

 

[Asisreo]

Okay, so if I tell players that they don't find a mcguffin in place A because I just decided it's in place B, this is railroading. But, if I decided this last week, and the same thing happens, it's just adventure design, and not railroading.

At the table, the exact same thing happens. It happens for the same reason -- the GM made a decision. The difference is just when the GM made that decision. Yet, to you, one is railroading and the other is just good play. Do I have this correct?

Any mandatory objective is railroading. McGuffins are mandatory and therefore railroading.

An object that the players are predetermined to find is mandatory and therefore railroading.

An optional object in an optional location is giving players free agency.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It was clarified that the information is always secret until the DM decides to reveal it. In other words, nothing they do will successfully tell them whether the treasure is actually there without going there. It wasn't in the initial prompt but he clarified it in one of the replies.

If the DM knows when, where, and why the false map was created before the players engage, its fine. If the DM does not know, that means that the map had no other purpose than to force the players onto the island. They would have ignored it if the DM gave any indication it wasn't trustworthy, but the DM locked out any signs that the map was false from player view, even when they went out of their way to find it. Their choices didn't matter, they just chose the only option to investigate further: to find it.

I use the term "McGuffin" alot as well, but I never use them in my games. There are no required item that the players must obtain to prevent them from dying, or to succeed at any one goal. The existence of a McGuffin is railroading.

Rather, a helpful item is at a location and obtaining that item may make surviving or completing the next goal easier but its never required.

Interesting, so, then, you're saying that if the players never need any specific item for anything, because they can just use something else or accomplish their goals in a different manner. This would imply that prep is pointless, because the players can just decide they want to do a thing a different way, and whatever way they choose must be allowed to work? Interesting, but utterly beside the point of my question. Assume the players wish to find the mcguffin, for their own reasons. Run the scenario -- is it railroading to place the item in a specific location?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Absolutely. But there's some magic words that make the problem (mostly) go away: "What do you plan to do next session?"

“We’ll think about it.”
Followed by 2 weeks of no communication, then one e-mail from 1 player 3 hours before the start of the game.

 

[billd91]

It was clarified that the information is always secret until the DM decides to reveal it. In other words, nothing they do will successfully tell them whether the treasure is actually there without going there. It wasn't in the initial prompt but he clarified it in one of the replies.

If the DM knows when, where, and why the false map was created before the players engage, its fine. If the DM does not know, that means that the map had no other purpose than to force the players onto the island. They would have ignored it if the DM gave any indication it wasn't trustworthy, but the DM locked out any signs that the map was false from player view, even when they went out of their way to find it. Their choices didn't matter, they just chose the only option to investigate further: to find it.
.

I don’t know why prior determination by the DM would matter. This isn’t a railroad unless the PC have no choice but to investigate the map at all. If they can choose to do other things entirely and never follow up on the map, there’s no railroad. Needing to follow the map to see what it leads to isn’t a railroad either. That’s how maps work, particularly treasure maps. How is anybody going to verify the map is legit or current without going there?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Then there's nothing to discuss because it's clearly not railroading unless we're assuming things that are unstated to be the case.

That's why I brought up the original context. Because it's absolutely worthless without it.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Any mandatory objective is railroading. McGuffins are mandatory and therefore railroading.

An object that the players are predetermined to find is mandatory and therefore railroading.

An optional object in an optional location is giving players free agency.

I just addressed this -- imagine that the players have chosen this item. Rerun the question. You're evading on spurious grounds.

But, I am interested in the ramifications of mcguffins being automatically railroading -- this implies that there cannot, ever, be any required actions to complete any task, and, as such, there's little room for prep. Take your example of play above -- the farmer only knew some of the information, and could not provide anything past what he knew. This is placing information in specific places and denying player actions to recover that information solely based on where they look for it. This would appear to be railroading, because you've placed information the players want in a place other than where they looked for it, and denied action declarations because of this choice you made.