D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Maxperson]

I was posing it to the group.

Of course I allow them to go to the tavern and then devise a way to organically encourage them to head back to the catacombs (basically, I railroad them). I can't remember a time in 40 years that hasn't worked.

If I prepared for a session in the catacombs (hypothetically), then that's where they'll go. I'm pretty good at it, too, so they enjoy it. I'm never directly confrontory and never verbally stop them from going off the rails. I don't know any decent DMs who do that -- simply break the fourth wall and order players to stop and get back on track. Honestly, does anyone do that?

I could improvise something else in a game, but I roleplay better when I've prepared for it (i.e. the catacombs).

I can improvise well enough that even if I don't have something else prepared, I can wing it through the night and prep whatever else it is that they want to do before they get there.

Not always, but fairly often, they will at some point get FOMO and go back anyway to see what they missed.

 

[Celebrim]

@Celebrim

Is railroading always coercive?

Hmmm... really interesting question. I'm inclined to say "Yes." but that answer may be subtly different from what you think is implied by "coercive". For example, we'd normally think that if someone gave verbal consent or agreement that they weren't being coerced, as the normal implication of those words. But I think it's reasonable to consider the question of whether you are being manipulated. For example, con artists almost always depend heavily on the consent of their mark to all off the con. If someone chooses to give away their life savings to someone else, and is in fact eager to do so, but then doesn't realize that they are being tricked and the reward they expect to receive isn't forthcoming, was that "coercive"? Whether it is definitionally coercive or not, it's definitely not consent as we normally think of it either.

Taking that a step further, what if an investment banker has a relationship with a client and without malice advises them to invest in a risky but potentially rewarding investment which then doesn't pan out. Was that "coercive"?

I can see in my head a lot of situations arising in gaming that would be just as subtle. The trouble is that a good GM is always trying their best to entertain the players, but that can easily get congruent with the thinking "The best outcome for this scene is the one that I'm imagining". There are trade offs being letting go and letting things happen and letting the dice fall where they may and putting your thumb on the wheel in order to steer things toward what you see as a preferable outcome. Should I fudge to prevent a TPK isn't got the malice we normally associate with "coercion" but is still pretty coercive.

I hope that explains what I'm thinking a bit.

 

[kermit4karate]

I can improvise well enough that even if I don't have something else prepared, I can wing it through the night and prep whatever else it is that they want to do before they get there.

Not always, but fairly often, they will at some point get FOMO and go back anyway to see what they missed.

You're lucky. I've known DMs who can improvise everything and show up to gameday with nothing prepared, no maps, lists of fantasy names, NPCs, nothing. Too stressful for me.

I've done it from time to time over the years, and it hurts my brain and fries my nerves. When I prepare it's so much easier.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hmmm... really interesting question. I'm inclined to say "Yes." but that answer may be subtly different from what you think is implied by "coercive". For example, we'd normally think that if someone gave verbal consent or agreement that they weren't being coerced, as the normal implication of those words. But I think it's reasonable to consider the question of whether you are being manipulated. For example, con artists almost always depend heavily on the consent of their mark to all off the con. If someone chooses to give away their life savings to someone else, and is in fact eager to do so, but then doesn't realize that they are being tricked and the reward they expect to receive isn't forthcoming, was that "coercive"? Whether it is definitionally coercive or not, it's definitely not consent as we normally think of it either.

I mean, the "con" in "con artist" means confidence trickster, as in, someone who abuses the confidence (=full trust) of another person. So, yes, by definition I would say such a person is being coercive.

And, to put my cards on the table, I have an extremely negative view of the vast majority of coercive actions that a private person can employ against another. So...yeah. Just putting that out there right from the start.

Taking that a step further, what if an investment banker has a relationship with a client and without malice advises them to invest in a risky but potentially rewarding investment which then doesn't pan out. Was that "coercive"?

Did they carry out their fiduciary duties? Meaning, did they specifically inform that client about the risks of this investment, making clear that there was a meaningful chance of significant loss? Negligence is still a failure of fiduciary duty, and can qualify as coercive.

If this banker genuinely made the risks clear, and the client signed off knowing the risks, then no, it isn't coercive--because they knew exactly what was going on. If they made an error of judgment from their own

I can see in my head a lot of situations arising in gaming that would be just as subtle. The trouble is that a good GM is always trying their best to entertain the players, but that can easily get congruent with the thinking "The best outcome for this scene is the one that I'm imagining".

And I am of the opinion that the GM should not think that. The best outcome is the one that happens.

There are trade offs being letting go and letting things happen and letting the dice fall where they may and putting your thumb on the wheel in order to steer things toward what you see as a preferable outcome. Should I fudge to prevent a TPK isn't got the malice we normally associate with "coercion" but is still pretty coercive.

I consider it just as bad as any other form of coercion. I don't fudge. Ever. I use other techniques which make clear to the players what's going on. That way I'm not lying to them. I'm playing with my cards face up. It's not a matter of perfection vs imperfection; I simply...don't do that thing. It's easy enough to consistently not fudge, just as (for example) it is easy enough to choose not to lie to other people IRL.

I hope that explains what I'm thinking a bit.

I mean, I guess? I refuse to run any game in a coercive way, regardless of system (currently, DW.) Yet I can still run quite effectively--I have players hoping to return after extremely well-justified need to step away.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're lucky. I've known DMs who can improvise everything and show up to gameday with nothing prepared, no maps, lists of fantasy names, NPCs, nothing. Too stressful for me.

I've done it from time to time over the years, and it hurts my brain and fries my nerves. When I prepare it's so much easier.

I wouldn't say I'm quite at that level of improvisation. But I've done enough background prep that I can usually improvise at least a couple hours' worth of stuff. And then I can whip up a combat relatively quickly--perhaps a five, ten minute break--so that's not a huge burden. I do use fantasy name generators to come up with names, but given I'm using pseudo-Arabic or pseudo-Moroccan names for most characters, it's not too hard to get usable stuff.

I do still prepare things most of the time, but I focus on prepping locations, situations, and challenges--and if the players, through cunning or force, manage to completely avert a challenge I've built, then I absolutely will not take that victory away from them, even if I think that challenge would be more interesting than their quick fix. If they outwit me, they've earned that!

 

[kermit4karate]

Only because you are still seeing railroading as a qualitative term rather than a quantitative thing. The question isn't "Are we railroading or not?" but "How much are we railroading?" Railroading is like temperature. It has a nice zone you want to be in for comfort.

I know I'm t-boning this discussion, which has become a bit of a bare-knuckle fight, but I tend to agree. I've mentioned that I do railroading (I think some would call it that). I do try to coax (coerce?) my players back into the adventure funnel when I've created one and they've hopped out. I don't like to run completely open games. I like to do a little bit of planning and follow a predetermined plot (for the most part).

I can confidently say that no one feels victimized by it.

I don't know if we're thinking of railroading the same way, but if I'm doing something wrong by trying to get my players back on track they don't mind.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I know I'm t-boning this discussion, which has become a bit of a bare-knuckle fight, but I tend to agree. I've mentioned that I do railroading (I think some would call it that). I do try to coax (coerce?) my players back into the adventure funnel when I've created one and they've hopped out. I don't like to run completely open games. I like to do a little bit of planning and follow a predetermined plot (for the most part).

I can confidently say that no one feels victimized by it.

I don't know if we're thinking of railroading the same way, but if I'm doing something wrong by trying to get my players back on track they don't mind.

A lot of it depends on how much the players are committed to the adventure-at-hand in the first place. I've had campaigns that were mostly on rails, everyone knew they were mostly on rails, and side gigs were considered by everyone a random luxury that shouldn't take up too much time. I've had other campaigns that were more free-wheeling and it would have been perceived as pretty bad form to try and nudge people, and people might well have said so. And there have been ones that landed in the middle (I'm probably going to be running Eclipse Phase in a few months and while it'll be mission-based, once they're assigned the mission, how they go about it is going to be entirely up to them.)

I suspect you've developed your approach because as you've mentioned, you're not terribly good at the improvisation end, and that will tend to direct you toward linear approaches.

Personally, I don't consider linear games a sin as long as everyone's on board. What I don't have much tolerance for is illusionism; if you're going to claim people have choices, don't play "all roads go to Rome" stunts with them, beyond cases where its obvious that's the case up front.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know if we're thinking of railroading the same way, but if I'm doing something wrong by trying to get my players back on track they don't mind.

I'm inclined to say that if your players think you are running a fun game and they want to play more, then you are doing something right.

I have found that the biggest braggarts about how different they are than everyone else tend to vastly overestimate how novel their techniques are or how little difference they have between their process of play and what most people are doing at their tables. Or else, they tend to vastly overestimate how fun their games are. The worst two GMs I've ever met both began by bragging about their ability. One bragged about how much agency she gave to her players then proceeded to run the most linear railroad I've ever encountered, so linear that I didn't feel it properly could be considered an RPG. Another bragged about how great they were at improvising, only to run a meaningless rowboat world session with no direction or any real drama where I never even could figure out what he wanted from the play.

I will say that it is important to know what your alternatives are and know why you are doing what you do. Paint with purpose, whether you are letting the dice fall where they may or running a sandbox with player driven goals or have an adventure prepared. Do that thing well with an understanding of what it takes to make it work.

 

[Celebrim]

Personally, I don't consider linear games a sin as long as everyone's on board. What I don't have much tolerance for is illusionism; if you're going to claim people have choices, don't play "all roads go to Rome" stunts with them, beyond cases where its obvious that's the case up front.

I don't have a lot of tolerance for illusionism either. For one thing, I don't like it as a player and I always strive hard to be the GM I would want to have as a player.

But take a figure like Seth Skorkowsky whose work I admire and in whose discussions about prep I see someone who has very similar aesthetics to my own and who doesn't in the slightest have that "I can improvise!" arrogance that has come to have a really bad taste in my mouth. This is a guy who is seriously talent and seriously experienced and he never is like, "I can just wing the game." He often has to improvise, but he's doing it in the context of someone who has prepared really hard for play. In short, I have a lot of reasons to trust his judgement based on the fact he seems to be a really good GM producing the sort of games that I also strive to produce.

And yet he's very open about the fact that he sometimes has to use illusionism and railroading techniques to make the game fun, and he's out putting this out there saying, "And at this point I had to use some GM force to make the situation better than I had prepared for or deal with some situation I hadn't prepared for, or just coral my confused players back toward the fun", and he's got players. Players that seem to very much enjoy what he does for very obvious reasons. And I to find myself in situations where I'm like, "Is it really better to not introduce a fortunate coincidence here?" or "Is it really better to not just pretend this monster has 20 hit points less than what I wrote down?" or what have you because I'm not perfect and sometimes it's best to just take that hit and reconfigure on the fly.

 

[kermit4karate]

I'm inclined to say that if your players think you are running a fun game and they want to play more, then you are doing something right.

I have found that the biggest braggarts about how different they are than everyone else tend to vastly overestimate how novel their techniques are or how little difference they have between their process of play and what most people are doing at their tables. Or else, they tend to vastly overestimate how fun their games are. The worst two GMs I've ever met both began by bragging about their ability. One bragged about how much agency she gave to her players then proceeded to run the most linear railroad I've ever encountered, so linear that I didn't feel it properly could be considered an RPG. Another bragged about how great they were at improvising, only to run a meaningless rowboat world session with no direction or any real drama where I never even could figure out what he wanted from the play.

I will say that it is important to know what your alternatives are and know why you are doing what you do. Paint with purpose, whether you are letting the dice fall where they may or running a sandbox with player driven goals or have an adventure prepared. Do that thing well with an understanding of what it takes to make it work.

Hmm... Bit on the nose there with the knife-twisting, but I agree that most DMs with more than a few years under their belt probably have more in common stylistically than they don't.

Also, I think we may agree that humans in general, even when they're able to improvise better than most, still benefit from planning and taking an organized approach. That applies to most things.

Bottom line, this is another of those discussions where there isn't a right or wrong answer for everyone. I'm gonna start calling these "Pedant's Delight" because they end up becoming fierce debates over the one true meaning of individual words! (cough like railroading)