D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Celebrim]

You only need to prepare more than enough content for the next session.

That's true of a linear game because you can generally expect where the next session is going to be. But in a true sandbox you are unlikely to guess what is going to happen. Generally speaking, I'd only expect to be able to prep for only the next session in a sandbox campaign if and only if it was a sandbox campaign that morphed into an adventure path early on because the players bit a hook that really intrigued them and not have clear definable long term goals and short term objectives.

 

[soviet]

I would join this thread ....

but I know where it is going.

I guess that it makes it the most aptly named thread ever!

You're not allowed to join this thread, Snarf Zagyg wouldn't do that.

 

[Celebrim]

I remember the original Dragonlance books being published, and some of my gamer friends were really excited to play the modules they published shortly thereafter. But later, they expressed disappointment; I was given to understand that you could really only follow the published story in the modules. They wanted to go off-script. It's maybe not really a Railroad; it's a "scripted adventure" which is I'm sure what the authors assumed the players wanted.

The Dragonlance adventure path was the first time I remember this becoming a big debate, precisely because by the text the adventures had a lot of very heavy handed railroading advice. Railroads had occurred before in D&D, but not campaign length ones and not with just heavy handed devices for keeping the players on track and certainly never before with stage direction telling the player how to play the character.

Many people said, "These are terrible, it's not even real D&D" and other people said "Well, the guard rails are there just for newbs, you don't have to force things on to the rails if you don't want to."

 

[Charlaquin]

That's true of a linear game because you can generally expect where the next session is going to be. But in a true sandbox you are unlikely to guess what is going to happen. Generally speaking, I'd only expect to be able to prep for only the next session in a sandbox campaign if and only if it was a sandbox campaign that morphed into an adventure path early on because the players bit a hook that really intrigued them and not have clear definable long term goals and short term objectives.

I mean, I disagree that it’s so hard to guess what the players’ immediate next goal will be. But more importantly, if one does find it difficult, the simple solution is to just ask the players, “What do you guys want to do next week?”

 

[pemerton]

Early RPGs established a very GM-centric model. The GM built the world, enforced the rules, and delivered the experience. Players were positioned as recipients. This wasn’t just logistics—it was ideological. Designers defended their own work by elevating the GM’s authority and framing players as lucky participants.

What I said was that early RPG texts and discourse did codify a GM-centric model, and that framing has had lasting influence on how we still talk about agency and “railroading.”

Early D&D didn't advocate for railroading, though. Here is how I describe the sort of play that Gygax advocates in the "Successful Adventures" section of his PHB: it is map-and-key play where the players can (a) learn the map, and at least important bits of the key, via "exploration" (ie low-stakes action declarations that oblige the GM to reveal the state of the "board"), and then (b) make choices about which latent scenes to activate/trigger by making the appropriate moves at the right place on the map.

What makes it not railroading - even though the GM is exercising overwhelming authority over the setting and backstory - is that the players have a lot of influence (via (a) and (b)) over choosing what scene occurs next (by choosing which door to open, based on what they learned via exploration), and over what is at stake (early on they can keep stakes low, by exploring; once they've identified the range of "targets" in the environment they can choose which one(s) to pursue).

Here's my attempt to describe a "limit case" for this sort of play:

The GM maps and keys a dungeon that is a single corridor, with doors along it and rooms leading from it. The players can travel the corridor, using ESP and Detection spells (and perhaps other exploration techniques) to get a sense of what is behind the doors, and then come up with a strategy about how to tackle the rooms, in the manner Gygax describes in his PHB.

The GM, in keying the rooms, includes opportunities that reward one approach rather than another, and hence reward good player planning: eg it's good to get the dragon-slaying sword from the Ogre room before you open the door to the dragon room; and it's good to get the hammer of giant-slaying from a bargain with the Dwarves before you tackle the Ogre room; and maybe there's another room, across the way from the Ogres, with some info about the Dwarves like Balin's tomb in Moria; etc.

This would not be the most exciting dungeon of all time, and its map is fairly boring, but I don't think playing through this would have to be a railroad-y experience.

CODA:
Classic Traveller is published in 1977. The Traveller Book (1982) compiles, and adds a bit to, the 1981 revision. There is nothing in the 1977 edition that suggests railroading by the referee. Whereas there is that sort of thing in the Traveller Book. To me, this change seems consistent with a broader hobby-wide change that began in the early 80s and was cemented by the end of the 80s. Which is the change to a GM-centrism that is also very railroad-y in advocated approach.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's true of a linear game because you can generally expect where the next session is going to be. But in a true sandbox you are unlikely to guess what is going to happen. Generally speaking, I'd only expect to be able to prep for only the next session in a sandbox campaign if and only if it was a sandbox campaign that morphed into an adventure path early on because the players bit a hook that really intrigued them and not have clear definable long term goals and short term objectives.

As long as there is no long range teleportation (which I tend to ban,) there is simply rather limited amount of places the PCs can get to by one session. And like @Charlaquin says, you can just ask them.

My current D&D game is pretty sandboxy, but actually it is a semi-quantum faux-sandbox. The things in the vicinity to the PCs are pretty tightly defined, but a large sections of the setting are just sketches, existing in some degree of quantum uncertainty. Enough is defined that there can be rumours, hints etc, but things need to be properly defined only when it is about to become relevant to the PCs.

 

[RealAlHazred]

Classic Traveller is published in 1977. The Traveller Book (1982) compiles, and adds a bit to, the 1981 revision. There is nothing in the 1977 edition that suggests railroading by the referee. Whereas there is that sort of thing in the Traveller Book. To me, this change seems consistent with a broader hobby-wide change that began in the early 80s and was cemented by the end of the 80s. Which is the change to a GM-centrism that is also very railroad-y in advocated approach.

Hmmm... The Traveller Adventure has several set-piece adventures/encounters which directly advance the main storyline. Then, there are a bunch of optional encounters of various kinds, which the GM is meant to sprinkle into regular play.

This book contains a complete campaign for Traveller; its main body consists of a number of adventures of different lengths, some of which advance the central plot and some of which are merely isolated incidents...

This campaign is not random. Players do not move blindly from one situation to another. Instead, there is an element of choreography; that is, the adventurers' steps should be subtly guided by the referee along the main path of the adventure. The adventure has a plot, although this fact should not be immediately apparent to the participants. The initial adventure, Leedor on Aramis, provides several interesting items, all of which can spur the players into the meat of the campaign. Each of these hooks directs the individuals' attention to some aspect of the campaign and will later prove informative and useful.

Further, the layout of the worlds within the Aramis subsector directs the adventurers to some worlds before others. The thrust, then, is for the players to explore or interact with the nearer worlds first. The facts they learn, the friends they make, the deals they find should all prove useful when the campaign comes to a climax...

The referee is always called upon to exercise judgment while running this campaign. Additional situations can be inserted as part of the campaign; they may be used to further define the main campaign track or may simply be adventures outside the continuing chain of events. The addition of events irrelevant to the main plot line may make the campaign more enjoyable, presenting the players with an additional level of mystery. They must determine which events bear upon the main mystery and which do not. Additional events may also make the campaign more realistic; real life doesn't follow a plot line.

It's not nearly as scripted as, say, the Dragonlance adventures, especially that each scenario in the main plot can be resolved in many, many different ways. I don't know that I would consider it a railroad; especially not if compared to several of the Classic Traveller Adventures and Double Adventures. For instance, in Double Adventure 2: Mission on Mithril, the players' ship suffers a scripted breakdown of a key component as it approaches the starport, and this requires the players to complete a mission to acquire a replacement. That seems more forced.

EDIT: I realize you said The Traveller Book, not The Traveller Adventure. My apologies!

 

[zarionofarabel]

Well, my personal take is probably odd, but as far as I can tell by what is described as what actually happens at the table, is that a "railroad" game and a "linear adventure" play out the same. The GM creates a predetermined plotline filled with specific scenes and encounters and the players follow the GMs prompts from one to the next until they reach the concluding scene/encounter. The real difference is that in a "linear adventure" the players are happy to do that, whereas in a "railroad" game the players want to do other things but are somehow (straight up or by illusionism) forced to follow the predetermined sequence of events. I think it's the perceived negative light that the "railroad" classification has attached to it that birthed the much newer "linear adventure" classification. Either way, at the table, both playstyles play out exactly the same, the difference being player buy in. I'm not sure why people don't just champion being "railroad" players and shout from the rooftops about how having tracks and predetermined scenes/encounters makes for a better game, as the "linear adventure" crowd often does.

Then again I watched a YT video recently where the creator proposed that no one actually plays a "sandbox" game because anytime the GM imputs anything in to the narrative they are denying players agency by determining details of the narrative without player consent. It was a strange take to say the least. Then again I also recently watched a video where the creator stated that a PC dying without express player permission was also denying player agency as the player wasn't given the choice as to whether or not they wanted the PC death to occur, even though the system and dice decided that outcome.

I'm old so at this point the whole dichotomy of "railroad" vs "sandbox" seems a little silly as I believe most games are a combination of both. I claim to run a "sandbox" game because I want the players to be the primary drivers of the narrative and create a story that emerges through play. I'm also seriously bad at guessing what the players will do and instead rely on real time prompts during play to inform me on what elements I should be adding to the narrative. The again, as a player I will happily sit back and wait for the next quest marker to pop up so I can dutifully follow it as I am usually interested to see where the GM is going with the story.

So yeah, does that mean I'm a "sandbox" GM but a "railroad" player?

 

[bloodtide]

Modern play culture, by contrast, often assumes collaboration and meaningful agency. Many players expect to co-create, not just receive. But the old assumptions never disappeared; they’re still embedded in published modules, adventure structures, and the language we use to talk about play.

Though the same problem existed 50 years ago that exists today: most players don't want to co-create. Most players want to do nothing more then play an individual character. Most players don't have fun when they sit behind the DM screen and say "in the cave is an orc", then walk over to the player side of the table and sit down and have their character say "gosh I wonder what is in the cave?" and then they pretend to act surprised when it is the orc they put there.

Though there are plenty of modern games that reduce the GM to just a player with harsh rules...

That’s why “railroading” feels so slippery. When a GM nudges players toward the riot or the dungeon, are they facilitating a story or denying agency? It depends entirely on what both sides thought the GM’s job was in the first place.

It is confusing

I well remember when I ran modules for the Living Arcanis campaign during the 3.5E days. One module I ran was a high-level module. While the players are visiting someone, a riot breaks out in the streets. The players are encouraged by the NPC to go to a different NPC's house. The DM is explicitly instructed that he an infinite number of 20th-level monks in the crowd to prevent the PCs from going anywhere else. Like, by this point you've done a bunch of modules in the city and could have a lot of friendly contacts you might be worried about or need the help of. But no.

That's a railroad.

Like a lot of railroading examples this is just Bad Dming. An an infinite number of 20th-level monks is just beyond ridiculous.

Like my example here of Bad Dming and Bad Players from just two weekends ago. DM Kyle started his game at the table next to me, and he could not stop saying "sandbox" enough. The players came....and for five hours: nothing happened in this game. The DM just sat back. The players had their PCs wander around town. And they fought a rabbit and a giant rat. It was a great example of a huge player agency sandbox.

Early D&D didn't advocate for railroading, though. Here is how I describe the sort of play that Gygax advocates in the "Successful Adventures" section of his PHB: it is map-and-key play where the players can (a) learn the map, and at least important bits of the key, via "exploration" (ie low-stakes action declarations that oblige the GM to reveal the state of the "board"), and then (b) make choices about which latent scenes to activate/trigger by making the appropriate moves at the right place on the map.

Early D&D was a very different game : nearly a pure hexcrawl wargame with no world, story or plot. The PCs just formed ("Spawned") at the adventure location and enter it...often a dungeon. Take G 1 Steading Of The Hill Giant Chief. It is pure classic D&D of Adventurers have been summoned and the gameplay starts with "It is assumed the party has arrived at a spot just outside the giants caves".

This would not be the most exciting dungeon of all time, and its map is fairly boring, but I don't think playing through this would have to be a railroad-y experience.

A dungeon, or any such limited setting is very much a physical type railroad. After all the PCs can only go a couple of set directions most of the time, and quite often they will be "stuck" going only one direction.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I'm a big fan of sandbox play, but I sometimes make pretty linear adventures. Usually they are one-shots, but the one I'm currently working on is being introduced into a long campaign.

One thing I often do in such situations is straight up tell the players ahead of time that this one shot or next chapter is going to be pretty linear. That way they know to grab the obvious hooks and not look all around for alternative paths to their goals or activities to do, which I would normally highly encourage.

I told my Players that this is an adventure path called The Curse of the Crimson Throne. It is an adventure path, which means there is a path, which means if we get off the path then we are no longer on it. I will be happy to create adventures for us if we get off the path and go in a different direction; but, the path is the story of the Curse of the Crimson Throne. If we want to participate in and learn that story then we need to stay on the path.

When on and adventure path, it is the Players responsibility to look for, recognize, and act on leads and hooks. It is the dungeon Masters responsibility to provide leads and hooks that can be recognized and acted upon.