D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Asisreo]

Because D&D is a co-op game. You fight and kill each other the end is a short and unenjoyable game.

We can all literally talk OoC or between sessions if the players really want to go through with this. If they're excited, we'll go for it. If they're reluctant except for one person, we'll re-evaluate what actions at least the majority wants to take.

Talking about the game should not be exclusive to session 0

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If they have to kill the lich, then its railroading.

Why do they have to kill the lich? Do they have to kill the lich because otherwise the lich will destroy the world? In which case, then choosing to go on holiday in Cormyr instead is nonsensical?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The GM doesn't have to be, but the GM is usually going to be the one to fall into that position by default, especially with a group of players who don't know each other very well.

Edit: But I did think after writing that I probably should have said it was an refusal of leadership rather than a failure of leadership.

I'd say it was a refusal/failure for everyone at the table, not specifically the GM.

 

[Asisreo]

Why do they have to kill the lich? Do they have to kill the lich because otherwise the lich will destroy the world? In which case, then choosing to go on holiday in Cormyr instead is nonsensical?

There are no "End of the World" plots in my games. The players have to deal with the political, social, and military consequences of an undead lich kingdom arising and conquering the land, spreading their foul influence.

The threat of killing your PCs to get a desired approach is railroading.

"You're walking through a dungeon and come across a fork. On your left, you see a Glyph of Instantly Kills anybody that walks through the hallway. On your right, you see totally safe not bad path. Forward is also an instant death corridor. Where do you want to go?"

Clearly railroading, right?

 

[Ovinomancer]

They want to kill the Lich. They have a specific goal that needs to be done a specific way. If they have to kill the lich, then its railroading.

No specific object is needed to kill a creature. If the creature is immune to magic weapons in an all martial party, the weapons could be randomly generated weapons in loot.

It could also be Holy Water, Acid, Alchemist's Fire, or Poison.

If you lie to someone, you change their perspective on that situation purposefully to get them to do or think what you want them to without their informed consent.

If you don't give players information, they cannot consent properly to the quest. They'll go to the island and be disappointed and if you fail to impress them on the island, they'll feel like they were led astray and not given any real opportunity to leave.

Even if those spells are upcasted to 7th level?

What about a rogue with Investigation Expertise with a minimum roll of 18 Investigation that takes an action to discern him?

I don't consider it railroading if its part of the game (I still don't like the surprise! Nature of it). But when a player clearly should have succeeded when they failed to withhold information, that's railroading.

What I'm taking from this is that placing requirements for accomplishing a goal is 100% kosher and expected and not railroading, so long as the players have an option to do anything else, no matter how unpleasant. Yes? So long as the players choose the thing, and have any other option for not choosing the thing, you're in the clear?

 

[Asisreo]

What I'm taking from this is that placing requirements for accomplishing a goal is 100% kosher and expected and not railroading, so long as the players have an option to do anything else, no matter how unpleasant. Yes? So long as the players choose the thing, and have any other option for not choosing the thing, you're in the clear?

Having a required goal is a type of railroading, so its fine if they have several other goals they wish to do. They may even want to join the Lich and his dark forces.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There are no "End of the World" plots in my games. The players have to deal with the political, social, and military consequences of an undead lich kingdom arising and conquering the land, spreading their foul influence.

It's still a fairly undesirable outcome, making the choice to do nothing idiotic.

The threat of killing your PCs to get a desired approach is railroading.

Being killed by the lich seems like a fairly deterministic consequence of the players' decision to piss it off in the first place.

"You're walking through a dungeon and come across a fork. On your left, you see a Glyph of Instantly Kills anybody that walks through the hallway. On your right, you see totally safe not bad path. Forward is also an instant death corridor. Where do you want to go?"

Clearly railroading, right?

It's pretty much like real life. We can, if we wish, choose not to eat. But the consequence of that decision (death) are such that most people most of the time don't choose not to eat. the same with drinking, sleeping, getting up, going to work, coming home. These are all choices, in podetium, but the consequence is such that most people make the same choice all day every day for their whole lives. The sort of choice people do get to make are those without meaningful consequences. Am I going to have toast or cereal for breakfast?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Having a required goal is a type of railroading

So, you are saying people shouldn't have goals, and actively work towards achieving them?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Having a required goal is a type of railroading, so its fine if they have several other goals they wish to do. They may even want to join the Lich and his dark forces.

Maybe the lich isn't interested in having the PCs as henchies?

Some things are never going to work out, no matter what the players want to happen.

 

[Composer99]

Having a required goal is a type of railroading, so its fine if they have several other goals they wish to do. They may even want to join the Lich and his dark forces.

I can only assume you mean "required" in a sort of categorical imperative sense?

If the players choose to oppose the lich and attempt to destroy it, is having destroy the phylactery be a conditional requirement of that choice actually "a type of railroading"? That seems an extraordinarily broad denotation, to the point where the term ceases to have any sensible meaning as a term of art in describing a particular type of undesirable DM gameplay behaviour.