D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Thomas Shey]

I think there's alot of assumptions that players can't tell if things are getting shuffled around, but its adding extra work ensuring that they can't tell.

If you have a bunch of generic encounters everywhere, sure, shuffling stuff around can be easy. But if you have your encounters married to your worldbuilding, its much harder.

Absolutely. Its not a coincidence that the Quantum Ogre is a generic as it is as an example.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you're gaining an entire level in one session you're not playing the game I play.

Not even close.

Right. Which is why I said it isn't particularly compelling to some of the people who find it so in computer games.

 

[Greg Benage]

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.

I'm honestly not sure if it's railroading because I'm having a hard time tracking you. But...why didn't the PCs try to find out if the McGuffin was in Place A or not before they went there? And if they did try to find out, presumably you as the DM needed to know whether it was there or somewhere else, so why would you "just decide" it's in Place B only after they show up at Place A?

This may be related to the inversion of cause and effect you can get in Blades, as suggested by your example? Like, no one knew the ship was heavily guarded or whatever until the players failed some rolls to investigate the ship. I don't play Blades or any other PbtA games so I'm not entirely sure -- the "railroading" concept may not even apply to those kinds of games. Your options are to some extent randomly generated (with added improvisational play), but you also made choices that led to those dice rolls that produced the situation and obstacles you face.

If pressed, I'd say "narrative game shenanigans" but not "railroading."

 

[Thomas Shey]

“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.

A variation on what I referred to as the "Where is my tapemark?" players.

 

[Asisreo]

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?

You don't prep based on the player's goals, you prep based off the NPC's goals and whatever events occur at whatever times. "The lich wants to obtain the forbidden book" is an adventure setup, but the players have the liberty to choose to grab the book before the lich or just attempt to kill the lich directly. Its not a McGuffin because its not mandatory for the players.

Edit: or they can just ignore the lich and deal with the new undead kingdom later, preferably when they're stronger.

---

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.

The assumption I was under was that they were given false information by otherwise completely reliable sources in order for the DM to place them exactly where they wanted them to be.

Its like the players going to an inn when suddenly, the innkeeper is suddenly an evil Rakshasa and attacks them in the night, yet when players casted Detect Magic, Dispel Magic, True Seeing, and Identify on the innkeeper, none of them revealed the innkeeper to be anything other than human.

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

If they chose to pursue the item, they'd go in its proper location anyways because they made the choice to go there to retrieve the item. I can't decipher the meaning of your question.

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.

In reality, I'd have multiple pieces of worldbuilding information sprinkled everywhere, but none of its mandatory since the players come up with their own goals. If they decided they didn't want to investigate the people up north, the world doesn't end, the shady people just continue to do their shady business. World-changing events may happen but I rarely threaten the player's lives if they don't pursue a hook.

I don't care where they go, who they talk to, and why they're there from a narrative PoV, I'm letting them explore my world and make their own decisions.

For the record, slight railroading for players new to the game or easily overwhelmed by choices aren't horrible. They need somewhere to start. Even then, though, I ask them what they would like their first objective to be and I edit the world to ensure that objective exists. Want to pull off a heist? Great. Want to rescue a damsel? Perfect. Want to kill a god? Go for it. I'll let them choose the hook they want so their objective is easily pursued without a breadth of overwhelming choice.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sure, but typically the divining spells that would reveal that information also cause the DM to decide to reveal it. Being secret until the DM decides to reveal it doesn't mean that the players can't do something to cause that reveal.

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.

A McGuffin is not inherently railroading. The PCs are usually free to ignore the McGuffin and go off and do something else. They won't succeed in the task that they aren't doing, but they aren't doing it so it doesn't matter. It's only railroading if they are forced down one path.

 

[Maxperson]

That sounds to me like the only valid events in the game world are in reaction to player actions. Nobody but the players can take initiative? The local lord cannot have their own reasons to toss people like the PCs in jail without first having interaction with them?

That isn't what I said. What I said was, "However, if the DM has set it up before they even get to town that the PCs will be jailed no matter what they do, then that's not fine." If they show up and the local lord has a legitimate in-fiction reason to arrest them, that's fine. If the DM is just out to jail the PCs no matter what, that's not fine. The GM gets to create a world, and some folks in that world may have their own agendas and act on them, whether the players choose to be involved or not.

 

[Asisreo]

A McGuffin is not inherently railroading. The PCs are usually free to ignore the McGuffin and go off and do something else. They won't succeed in the task that they aren't doing, but they aren't doing it so it doesn't matter. It's only railroading if they are forced down one path.

By my understanding, McGuffins were objects mandatory to the plot like The One Ring or The Crystal Skull. If that's not your definition, though, that's fine. But it is how I categorize an object meant for railroading.

Sure, but typically the divining spells that would reveal that information also cause the DM to decide to reveal it. Being secret until the DM decides to reveal it doesn't mean that the players can't do something to cause that reveal.

If I read correctly, there was no way the players could obtain this information. If the information exists and it can be obtained through some force, I don't consider it railroading. If the DM completely blocks that information, it is railroading.

 

[Maxperson]

By my understanding, McGuffins were objects mandatory to the plot like The One Ring or The Crystal Skull. If that's not your definition, though, that's fine. But it is how I categorize an object meant for railroading.

A McGuffin is just an object necessary for a plot. If you ignore the plot, you ignore the McGuffin. Indiana Jones could have just left without the Ark and let the Germans have it. I've had players simply reject a major plot and it went on without them while they wandered off to become pirates.

If I read correctly, there was no way the players could obtain this information. If the information exists and it can be obtained through some force, I don't consider it railroading. If the DM completely blocks that information, it is railroading.

The author of those posts has been liking my posts responding to you, so I'm inclined to think I'm reading it closer to his intent than you are.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

This sentence is quite difficult for me to parse, it’s got like four negatives in it. What way are people going to see what?