D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Maxperson]

Have you played in the Forgotten Realms, or Eberron?

… ever read a Volo’s guidebook?
… or read Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
… or any Paizo Adventure Path.

Prevalence of magic and resources is a dial, you turn up or down. If you prefer one inn every 150 miles that’s your prerogative.

Yeah. I run the Forgotten Realms. Those Volo's books, they're from an edition(3e) where you are on a magic item treadmill and are expected to have a billion small items by level 2(slight exaggeration). The actual world, though? There are a lot of powerful wizards, but there weren't a lot of actual magic shops in 1e and 2e. Magic was primarily found, not bought.

A Red Wizard enclave(3e retcon of Red Wizards to allow magic item sales) isn't going to a small town to sell, because no one there can afford it. They would go to a city where there are buyers.

 

[Asisreo]

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?

Railroading is when you can't have toast and you must have cereal. Even if you have money, a toaster, and a store that sells bread, you're not allowed to turn that into toast.

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

I don't know, sounds like a potential ally for players with dubious moral compasses. I mean, if the lich is expressly homicidal, it may be in their best interest to kill him. Or they could keep avoiding its influences until something takes care of it.

That's the freedom of choice.

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.

Of course, but you as a DM should let them pursue what they want rather than just saying no. The lich is a character. It must have reasons for its actions. Even if the reasonings are that its magically compelled to murder living creatures, that means that if players end up becoming revenants then they should be reasonably able to ally with the lich, at least for a time.

 

[Asisreo]

Even end of the world plots aren't railroading, since the PCs could just pay someone to get them to another plane and go somewhere else. The players almost always have a choice.

So long as the choices aren't being thwarted through impromptu means, then its not railroading.

This rings very hollow because it excuses every single thing you've sited as railroading so long as there's at least one other choice the players could make -- no matter how unacceptable to the players that may be.

Not really. Its about who takes initiative and why. If the players are interested in a real goal and they pursue it, then they'll be required to do certain things but they still made the choice. And they can still opt out, they just won't meet that goal.

If an goal is required, its railroading. If an item is needed to achieve an optional goal, its not railroading.

 

[TheSword]

Yeah. I run the Forgotten Realms. Those Volo's books, they're from an edition(3e) where you are on a magic item treadmill and are expected to have a billion small items by level 2(slight exaggeration). The actual world, though? There are a lot of powerful wizards, but there weren't a lot of actual magic shops in 1e and 2e. Magic was primarily found, not bought.

A Red Wizard enclave(3e retcon of Red Wizards to allow magic item sales) isn't going to a small town to sell, because no one there can afford it. They would go to a city where there are buyers.

Volo’s guides were AD&D and there was a high level wizard, running an inn in every flyspeck village between Waterdeep and the Great Glacier.

…Same for the Dales
…Same for Cormyr.

I don’t believe it’s unusual for low level scrolls and potions are found for sale in default D&D. As I said they’re cheap and have no shelf life. But even if they weren’t, they are available in my world. I’m confident enough being the only guy on ENWorld who has a scroll merchant in his campaigns.

It doesn’t change the my point. The same can be said of gem merchants, armourers, alchemists etc. As soon as PCs start robbing from resources made available to them, the DM is discouraged from having these things available, penalizing players.

 

[Maxperson]

If an goal is required, its railroading. If an item is needed to achieve an optional goal, its not railroading.

I agree. I.e. you must have the Vorpal Sword to kill the Jaberwocky. That's not a railroad at all. You don't have to try and kill the Jaberwocky. I've yet to see a goal that isn't optional, though. My PC can always opt to walk away unless the DM is going to play my PC.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Don't disagree. This is because the GM has been routinely pitched as the leader of the social unit rather than a fellow participant rather than the way it should be, where everyone is responsible for the social contract equally. RPGs are not a special instance of social gatherings that put the onus on one person to maintain the social contract.

I agree with your second statement, but not your first; honestly, I've seen plenty of social situations where, if not receiving help, the less confrontational just shut down. You see it business contexts all the damn time.

 

[Asisreo]

I agree. I.e. you must have the Vorpal Sword to kill the Jaberwocky. That's not a railroad at all. You don't have to try and kill the Jaberwocky. I've yet to see a goal that isn't optional, though. My PC can always opt to walk away unless the DM is going to play my PC.

I feel like people think I'm telling them that they're playing wrong when they actually are giving the players choices but they just don't see that.

If your adventure is about rescuing a princess, then the players chose to rescue the princess by joining that adventure (given the DM informs them that's what the adventure is about). That's not railroading.

Railroading is when after you rescue a princess, suddenly an evil wizard appears and threatens to plunge the world into chaos! You must defeat the wizard! "I don't want to defeat the wizard...." "Too bad, play my adventure or your character dies.

See the difference?

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

By these definitions every published adventure is a railroad, because it includes a plot.

Most published adventures are essentially railroads, and Here's Why That's A Good Thing--well, back that up: it's not good, it's not bad, it's neutral. It's understandable. A lot of players and GMs don't have the free time to devote to writing sprawling campaigns and generating vast hexcrawls. A lot of people want to be able to block out a couple hours per week and play D&D without stressing about the details that much, so a preplanned adventure with a defined start, middle, and end works best for them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree with your second statement, but not your first; honestly, I've seen plenty of social situations where, if not receiving help, the less confrontational just shut down. You see it business contexts all the damn time.

I've seen it, too. But, not doing the thing doesn't mean you're not responsible for the thing, so this doesn't argue against my premise the responsibility is shared. In practice, there's plenty of times where the social contract breaks down and people don't stand up for it. This doesn't mean that the GM has to take the lead, though. Which has been my argument -- the GM is not the de facto leader of the social contract, they are a participant on par with everyone else. Demystifying the GM's job, including making sure that people know they're not supposed to be the shot-caller for the social contract, is desperately needed in the hobby.

 

[Morrus]

Most published adventures are essentially railroads, and Here's Why That's A Good Thing--well, back that up: it's not good, it's not bad, it's neutral. It's understandable. A lot of players and GMs don't have the free time to devote to writing sprawling campaigns and generating vast hexcrawls. A lot of people want to be able to block out a couple hours per week and play D&D without stressing about the details that much, so a preplanned adventure with a defined start, middle, and end works best for them.

Indeed. Also a lot of people aren’t that interested in sandbox hex crawls, even if they had the time.