D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Cadence]

That way lies madness… if everything a DM does and everything a DM doesn’t do is railroading, railroading no longer has any meaning.

Would that save us from threads like this?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Would that save us from threads like this?

The whole sense of threads like this might be summed up the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

Or, you know, make up a lot of jargon-y words and talk past each other. Either/or!

 

[TheSword]

Yeah, hard disagree on that. Bad pacing is one of my top sources of RPG frustration. But to each their own.

Yes, I’m too busy to spend an entire session shopping, or have the party split up and have to be a spectator for 2/3 of the game. Or indeed have one massive battle after another continuously.

Pacing is massively important, and to me, one of DMs most important gauges to check and influence.

 

[Maxperson]

This is not indicated in the rules. Stating that a GM should know not to "roll a combat that's that one sided" is dismissing the procedures of the game and expecting a talented GM to cover for a design flaw. Even moreso, what if that combat does matter? If the PCs are allow low on hit points and resources, seven kobolds could very well put up enough of a fight that running the combat makes the difference between everyone leaving the dungeon alive and them needing a gentle repose and a hasty retreat.

The rules are rulings OVER rules. Why waste the time of the players on a non-battle battle? A corner case scenario where the PCs are low on hit points and resources in the middle of a city is just that, a corner case. It could and should be ruled differently. Generally, though, the DM should just narrate the speedbump victory and move on.

 

[Maxperson]

Would that save us from threads like this?

No. They'd be forced on us anyway.

 

[Hussar]

And here you hit on a very important element: pacing.

The question I rase is this: should either the players or the DM have any pre-set expectations around pacing?

My answer is no; that things should just happen at the speed they happen, meaning sometimes the PCs will just zip through the adventures and other times things will grind to a complete halt for a while.

To a slight extent I agree there's times when the randomizer needs some nudging; but pacing IMO shouldn't be a consideration when doing such.

I'm going to disagree with you here, despite agreeing entirely with your agreement with my definition of railroading.

The DM has so many tools at his disposal to affect pacing. You want to speed things up? That's easy, simply make a couple of player acceptable assumptions (You toss the room, there's nothing to find) and pace goes up, or, insist on more detail (where are you starting your search of the room) and slow the game down. The players, largely, have very little control over pacing since they can't really know if their decisions are leading to something or not - searching the room might turn up something, or, maybe there's nothing to find, but, in any case, we have to search the room. And the next room. And the next room. Etc.

It really is on the DM to at least pay some attention to pacing. If the game is dragging and the players are checked out? Ok, giant space hamsters break in and start biting you! Blow something up. Whatever. Or, if the game is racing ahead and some things are getting skipped over? Maybe pump the brakes a bit and slow things down.

Heck, take a pee/beverage/whatever break is the easiest way to pump the brakes on the pacing of a session. Players have jumped around your ideas and done something completely unexpected and you're not entirely sure what to do? PEE BREAK! Come back in five minutes and we'll continue.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm going to disagree with you here, despite agreeing entirely with your agreement with my definition of railroading.

The DM has so many tools at his disposal to affect pacing. You want to speed things up? That's easy, simply make a couple of player acceptable assumptions (You toss the room, there's nothing to find) and pace goes up, or, insist on more detail (where are you starting your search of the room) and slow the game down. The players, largely, have very little control over pacing since they can't really know if their decisions are leading to something or not - searching the room might turn up something, or, maybe there's nothing to find, but, in any case, we have to search the room. And the next room. And the next room. Etc.

It really is on the DM to at least pay some attention to pacing. If the game is dragging and the players are checked out? Ok, giant space hamsters break in and start biting you! Blow something up. Whatever. Or, if the game is racing ahead and some things are getting skipped over? Maybe pump the brakes a bit and slow things down.

Heck, take a pee/beverage/whatever break is the easiest way to pump the brakes on the pacing of a session. Players have jumped around your ideas and done something completely unexpected and you're not entirely sure what to do? PEE BREAK! Come back in five minutes and we'll continue.

Honestly I think the popularity of D&D has something to do with this.
The DM can always just throw in a fight and by the time it's done it's time for everyone to go home and the DM has a week to think of what to do next.

And more generally I think a lot of players find role-playing in character mentally taxing and a fight can be a welcome relief.

 

[cbwjm]

Well, after reading this thread off and on, I'm guessing at least one of the reasons people defend railroading is because no one can agree exactly on what that actually is. One man's railroading is another man's linear adventure.

 

[robus]

Well, after reading this thread off and on, I'm guessing at least one of the reasons people defend railroading is because no one can agree exactly on what that actually is. One man's railroading is another man's linear adventure.

Hussar’s earlier post was the best definition I’ve seen yet. And it really should end the debate IMHO.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Well, after reading this thread off and on, I'm guessing at least one of the reasons people defend railroading is because no one can agree exactly on what that actually is. One man's railroading is another man's linear adventure.

I would largely agree with this, with one added caveat: even if we stick to a super narrow and constrained definition of "railroading," like one where a campaign or adventure has become dysfunctional because the DM is negating the players' choices in favor of specific outcomes and the players are aware of it, that's still fuzzy -- thanks to the fact that DMs who make regular use of tools like illusionism, forcing, rubber-banding, and fudging tend to grossly overestimate their ability to hide these moves from their players' awareness.

Discovering the DM's secret railroad is always possible, and it always sucks.