D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Hussar]

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.

But, if they want to kill the lich, they must destroy the phylactery, otherwise, they fail.

Does that not mean that any lich in any adventure automatically becomes a railroad?

 

[Hussar]

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.

This is a fairly easy to prove false.

Any monster that requires magic weapons to hit require mandatory objects. So, basically any adventure with a demon or a lycanthrope is now a railroad?

Your definition pretty much makes any sort of in medias res adventure start a railroad. Heck, it's practically impossible to not railroad by this definition. "You meet in the color animal inn" is a railroad by this definition.

 

[billd91]

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.

In this case, the information about the map wasn't even incorrect - it was just incomplete because while a cartographer may be able to verify an island depicted on the map is correct and reasonably accurate, there's no way he can verify that a hidden cache of treasure is there unless he's actually been there. The issue is still the same - truthful or false, why would the quality of the information given determine whether or not it's a railroad as long as the players still have the choice whether or not to go after the treasure?

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

This assumption is correct. The party has decided to take a long voyage to an island, under the false pretense of treasure. The DM knows there is no treasure to be found there, but any evidence that the party collects will suggest that there is. Only the DM knows it's a fool's errand.

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.

This is far more extreme...I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. The DM knows that the party is going to be ambushed by a rakshasa, and there's nothing the party can do to prevent it.

In both cases, the party was expecting something. In both cases, the DM prevented them from getting it. But there is an important difference between the two (in bold), and I think that difference is the crux of the debate.

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.

This is a great way to describe an open-world, sandbox game style. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's a solid style.

 

[MaskedGuy]

After five more pages in this thread, I still consider this confusing thread to read ._.; Everyone still has fairly different idea of what is railroading.

But yeah, I suppose I might as well give here a tip for people who don't want to "force" players to do stuff, but want them to do something specific stuff.

Players seem to be quite easily influenced by leading questions. Like "Do you want to check out that side room btw before you leave?" or "Do you want to ask more about that thing you heard about before?" Its not straight up railroading unless you ignore what they answer (which you shouldn't If players so no, then you ignore whatever cool you put into that side room you wanted to use), but its surprisingly easy way to get players do something they might have ignored or forgotten about.

(its also usually better way to give guidance to players who have choice paralysis in open world games. So the GMs of style "Never say anything and let players' dig their own traps" don't ye dare to stick up yer noses at that ;P)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

So 29 or 30 or so pages in we do not have a clear definition of what railroading is but a number of people are firmly again it and the majority are; as far as I can tell, not too bothered one way or another.

I think we can stick a fork in to an call it done.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

Do you have any examples of this actually happening in a game, or is it a giant strawman?

 

[Hussar]

Just to play with the Rakshasa example here for a second. Since Rakshasa in 5e are immune to any spell of 6th level or lower (unless it chooses to be affected) is it still railroading that the players, after casting "Detect Magic, Dispel Magic, True Seeing, and Identify" when none of those spells would work on a Rakshasa, are ambushed by the Rakshasa and nothing is revealed beforehand?

See, this is the issue I'm seeing here with these overly broad definitions. How is it possibly railroading to have the Rakshasa not be detected by the PC's here? They did nothing that actually WOULD detect a Rakshasa. So, is it railroading?

Like I said above, is every use of a lich railroading since you have to destroy the phylactery to kill a lich? Is it railroading to use lycanthropes against a party that isn't carrying silver weapons? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Hussar]

Do you have any examples of this actually happening in a game, or is it a giant strawman?

Oh, can I answer that one?

Let's see. Playing a 2e Keep on the Borderlands game. The players spend considerable amounts of time planning to robbing the gem merchant in the Keep. Casing things out, doing all the footwork, the works. Gear up to go rob the gem merchant and discover that the gem merchant has closed up shop and moved away from the Keep without warning or reason. Nope, cannot follow him, he's got too much of a head start, you'll never catch him.

First time I ever led a player revolt. Entire group quit that DM's game on the spot.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nope, cannot follow him, he's got too much of a head start, you'll never catch him.

Was that unreasonable? Did the PCs have any means of tracking him or catching up with him?