CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
It's been ages since I've run a good hex crawl. As a DM I like them a lot...but they drive my players crazy.
D&D General Why defend railroading?
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Here's another rephrase of what you're saying:
1) If players choose to do X, it's okay to require goals to do X.
2) If the GM forces X on the players, then this is railroading.
3) However, I can make the players suffer consequences for not doing X, and this is not railroading.
4) Further, I can make all other options for doing X less attractive, but this isn't forcing X, so it's not railroading.
Conclusion: I can say that a lich is raising an undead army to take over the world, and this is not railroading because the players can choose to ignore this. If they do, though, then the lich will take over the world and the players will have to deal with that -- perhaps some odd occurrence happens to mitigate this, but probably not (I mean, they could become revenants). So, the choice it to deal with the Lich or suffer consequences, your choice! If you do choose to deal with the lich, then I can require all kinds of goals be met, with any type of specificity I want, for that goal to be accomplished, and it's not railroading because you chose to do this in the first place (or else).
That about get it?
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Vice versa for me -- as a player, I can enjoy a good hex crawl. As a GM, they're a nightmare of prep.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
This is conflating linear with railroading. Published adventures are linear, but not railroads. As an example, I can start my players on Rime of the Frost Maiden and halfway through the players might decide that they can get a better tan in Chult and head south.
Nothing stops them from exiting the linear adventure when they want to exit, so it's not a railroad. Now, the DM and players can agree to abide by and complete the adventure, but that's opting into rails.
Asisreo
Patron Badass
That's an adventure, so yeah, its not railroading. Although, I'd say this stuff should, again, be established before the campaign started.
Now, is it a fun adventure? Depends on the specificity and fun of the required actions for the goal. But a bad adventure doesn't mean a railroaded one.
Edit: The thought of a "desirable outcome" is based off of your preferences, but players might actually enjoy struggling to survive in a post-apocalyptic undead hellscape. Maybe they think their characters would feel more liberated from the structures of humanoid society. Maybe they just think it would make a badass story. Either way, its the players that gets to choose whether an outcome is desirable, not the DM.
Last edited:
Thomas Shey
Legend
I think this is fighting the tide, at least in games with an even quasi-traditional role for the GM in managing the game; he's always going to be the one who ends up holding that bag unless the group is abnormally good at managing it internally (and I use the term "abnormally" deliberately).
I tend to agree that too much authority is assumed to the GM, with the sometimes accompanying expectations, but this is an area where I don't seriously see much better options for most people that are going to actually work.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Over and above the issue of how much decision making any given player wants at any given time, large amounts of group decision making can be both time consuming and, honestly, kind of stressful. Maximizing that for some people is the opposite of a virtue.
Urriak Uruk
Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
As Matt Colville says, "Rollercoasters are on railroads, and people seem to like those!"
I'm going to paraphrase his quite good video on the subject, but essentially there are two types of railroading.
"Good" Railroading
There is "railroading" where there is essentially a set plot the DM has set up, with a series of encounters that progress in a linear manner. You first do A, then B, then C... you can't move on to B before completing A, etc.
There's nothing really wrong with this; in fact, most modules are constructed in exactly this way. Now, although each encounter needs to be completed in a linear way, that doesn't mean they have to done in a specific way exactly the same every time. It's why two different groups can play the same linear module and yet have completely different gaming experiences.
Three different groups, playing the same adventure, need to get a key from the guard to escape. The first group tricks the guard into entering the cell, they beat him up and take the key to escape. The second group talk to the guard, gaining his sympathy and convincing him to escape. The third group waits for him to nod off to sleep, and use mage hand to swipe the key and escape. Very different methods, same result.
This is railroading in that the same events all need to happen to progress, but how the PCs do it is allowed to be very different; so yes, they're on a railroad, but the PCs still have plenty of choice, and they still have tons of fun! Players often like having plot points and hooks fed to them directly, but they like using their own methods to move forward.
"Bad" Railroading
Bad railroading takes all the above, but with one step further. Not only are the events linear as above, but there is only one solution to every problem. There is no player choice, as the DM will only allow one specific solution to solve the problems they lay before the players. Essentially, the PCs must follow the DMs script. If this encounter is supposed to be a fight, the PCs can't negotiate a peaceful solution (or vice-versa). It doesn't matter how high the PCs roll, or how creative their solutions, the DM will find some reason it fails and drive them back to their scripted solution.
To use the prison example again, the DM has it written down that the PCs need to wait for the guard to fall asleep, and then use mage hand to take the keys. But groups 1 and 2 are impatient (and have no idea the guard is going to fall asleep eventually). Group 1 tries again and again to trick the guard, but none of it works; even when they roll well, the DM argues that this guard is especially smart and won't fall for such tricks. Group 2 tries talking to this guard and explaining their situation, hoping to win them on their side; even when getting a natural 20, the guard has no interest in helping them.
This is bad, because there is no choice at all. It's like watching a movie (or being an actor in a movie) where the director has given you your lines, and you're meant to follow them. Sometimes that's fun, but it's not really D&D either.
I'm going to paraphrase his quite good video on the subject, but essentially there are two types of railroading.
"Good" Railroading
There is "railroading" where there is essentially a set plot the DM has set up, with a series of encounters that progress in a linear manner. You first do A, then B, then C... you can't move on to B before completing A, etc.
There's nothing really wrong with this; in fact, most modules are constructed in exactly this way. Now, although each encounter needs to be completed in a linear way, that doesn't mean they have to done in a specific way exactly the same every time. It's why two different groups can play the same linear module and yet have completely different gaming experiences.
Three different groups, playing the same adventure, need to get a key from the guard to escape. The first group tricks the guard into entering the cell, they beat him up and take the key to escape. The second group talk to the guard, gaining his sympathy and convincing him to escape. The third group waits for him to nod off to sleep, and use mage hand to swipe the key and escape. Very different methods, same result.
This is railroading in that the same events all need to happen to progress, but how the PCs do it is allowed to be very different; so yes, they're on a railroad, but the PCs still have plenty of choice, and they still have tons of fun! Players often like having plot points and hooks fed to them directly, but they like using their own methods to move forward.
"Bad" Railroading
Bad railroading takes all the above, but with one step further. Not only are the events linear as above, but there is only one solution to every problem. There is no player choice, as the DM will only allow one specific solution to solve the problems they lay before the players. Essentially, the PCs must follow the DMs script. If this encounter is supposed to be a fight, the PCs can't negotiate a peaceful solution (or vice-versa). It doesn't matter how high the PCs roll, or how creative their solutions, the DM will find some reason it fails and drive them back to their scripted solution.
To use the prison example again, the DM has it written down that the PCs need to wait for the guard to fall asleep, and then use mage hand to take the keys. But groups 1 and 2 are impatient (and have no idea the guard is going to fall asleep eventually). Group 1 tries again and again to trick the guard, but none of it works; even when they roll well, the DM argues that this guard is especially smart and won't fall for such tricks. Group 2 tries talking to this guard and explaining their situation, hoping to win them on their side; even when getting a natural 20, the guard has no interest in helping them.
This is bad, because there is no choice at all. It's like watching a movie (or being an actor in a movie) where the director has given you your lines, and you're meant to follow them. Sometimes that's fun, but it's not really D&D either.
Shair-afiyun
Villager
Depends on where the railroad goes and how long I have to sit on the train. If my character is allowed to 'get up and stretch' for awhile its not so bad. If its always on the train, then yea, railroading is obnoxious and unwanted.
You could try "Do you want to touch that?" x'DThat's not my experience. Every time they ask a question like, "Is the lava real or illusion?" and "Is there really a demon behind that seal?" and I respond with, "Do you want to jump in?" and "Do you want to deface the seal?", they say no. Alas, I've never been able to influence them with leading questions.
