What is "railroading" to you (as a player)?

[aramis erak]

That's still not a railroad. If you fail at something you can get into hot water, which can include being trapped. That's not a railroad. The group chose to go to White Plume Mountain. They chose to keep exploring. Their choices brought them to the puzzle where they failed and got stuck.

Clearly, you have no experience with White Plume Mountain as written. It's one big railroad of puzzle after puzzle.

A railroad is the DM forcing the party into the mountain even though they want to go some other way. Then forcing them through the dungeon to puzzle even though they want to leave.

Exercise of player agency can result in being stuck or only having one way out of something.

Yeah. I was a teenager at the time and didn't have the experience that I have now. Now I wouldn't gate something critical behind a puzzle or secret door, but if I did somehow screw up and didn't realize how important the thing gated was, I would act to correct my error. Depending on the nature of the error and the state of the fiction, the players may or may not know that there was a problem that got fixed.

So, illusionism, got it...

 

[Maxperson]

Clearly, you have no experience with White Plume Mountain as written. It's one big railroad of puzzle after puzzle.

No. It's linear. What makes it a railroad or not is if it's forced on the players no matter what they might wish. If they opt in, it's not a railroad, because they exercised agency to get in that line.

So, illusionism, got it...

I really don't know where you got illusionism from, but no.

 

[Scott Christian]

In my opinion those people's opinions can simply be discounted. It's quite literally the game play loop for D&D.

1) The DM describes the environment(potentially trapped in the Feywild).
2) The players describe what they want to do(locate an archfey to get out).
3) The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

If folks consider that railroading, I'm not going to pay attention to their complaints.

There's no way for me to know, because it wasn't my game. There are far too many variable, including all prior game play from 1st(or whatever level they started at) to 13th level. For all I know they have two gods who owe them favors and made good friends with an archfey. That would skyrocket the chances of success for those two possibilities.

I can only accurately assess the chances for success or failure in the games that I run, because I have the information needed to do so.

Correct, there are a lot of variables. But you're still missing the point. This IS the quest - to get out of the Feywild. It's not placing a DC on some jump over a pit, understanding a church signage, or following a few tracks. Those are all things DMs have to make up in order to keep the "play loop" going.

This is the primary objective. The one thing they have to do in order to continue their campaign. (Which they all want to do.) So, not knowing any of the chances for those things, because the DM didn't even think about them, or any of them, means the DM is making up odds with no real thought, just impulse.

That used to be railroading. The DM instantly narrowing or increasing chances based on how they feel. Is the pizza late and they're hungry? Did they have a bad day at work? Are they enjoying watching their players squirm and become exasperated? I think they call these DMs grognards, to note that they are old (or play old school) and are the gods of the world. And they will decide (with no forethought) as to whether the players have appeased the DM god.

All of your ideas with no forethought, just like blinking a group into the Feywild with no campaign tie-in whatsoever, can be considered railroading. And again, it can be fun.

I am ok with you and @Reynard not accepting that definition. It's ok. Everyone on here has a different definition anyway. But once you drag your friends to GenCon for a once and a lifetime experience, and play D&D with a guy who says he used to play with Gary Gygax, and then he does exactly this, then you might change your mind. Until then, I respect your opinion. It's valid.

 

[Scott Christian]

You seem to be suggesting that if the GM did no pre-plan for every possible contingency, anything they decide turns into "railroading" because it is just placating their whims.

This is not my experience at all, and in fact hard designing of possible outcomes is much more likely to result in railroading.

Nope. Not what I said. How about just designing the most common ones you think your group will use or have fun with. You can set them up just like you did the start of the adventure.
DM: You enter the Feywild, and notice a satyr laying on a log. He sees you and perks up. "I see you just tried to leave, too bad for you, you can't. And you also can't eat meat. (grumble) They didn't have to go and steal all the forks! But I have a few ways you can get out, and if you want to hear them, it'll only cost you a few bottles of wine."

That is just as less of a railroad (if any at all) than the start of your adventure (which is slight at best). Now they have four ways to leave that the satyr told them. Can they try their own ideas. Of course. But at least the DM now has thought it out as to the hows and whys characters can get out. Now, the DM can compare those odds (just like they would balance an encounter to not be too deadly) with the other options. They can weigh whether the odds are greater, the same, or less because of variables.

 

[Celebrim]

We're getting to the point here where if a door only swings one way it's going to be called railroading. IDK. Puzzles have solutions, sometimes only one solution. If one wants to call that railroading then the term has lost any and all meaning.

It's only railroading if the puzzle becomes absolutely required to solve. In other words, if the door to the puzzle is surrounded by obdurium walls, and there is a planar lock on the area beyond, and nothing can dispel the magic, and the puzzle has to be solved right now because the PCs can't go anything else, or go research riddles and come back, or whatever.

Of course, the GM is probably well within his rights to make bypassing the riddle door very very difficult - afterall, whoever made the riddle door obviously wanted people not to bypass it (though this brings up why you'd protect a door with a relatively easy to solve riddle). But, if the GM just says "no" to a reasonable plan to bypass the door without solving the riddle because he's so invested in that, then that is "railroading" - justified or not.

 

[Scott Christian]

Setting those DCs based on PC actions is organic. All DMs will have to do that if the characters go in a unexpected direction.

Thats not railroading* or whims, in my opinion. It the DM doing they best they can to continue play.

All I am saying is - this is the quest. This is the final objective. Yes, DMs set DCs all the time, and they take into account many things. (At least that's what we like to believe.) But, this is what the group has to do in order to get out and actually finish their campaign. So to say the DM had no idea and gave it no thought, can be considered "railroading" only because they have to do something to win over the DM, not some well-constructed, reasoned, and thought-out event. This is not a barred door. This is the end game, and a DM makes a railroad more easily by basing their decision on reflexive thought, as opposed to a premeditated and thoughtful approach.

 

[Celebrim]

No. It's linear. What makes it a railroad or not is if it's forced on the players no matter what they might wish. If they opt in, it's not a railroad, because they exercised agency to get in that line.

While I tend to agree, I also think that if 99 out 100 roads lead to the same place, it's still a railroad even if it is subtle about it.

I really don't know where you got illusionism from, but no.

Fudging things, even if just to correct mistakes you made in your prep, is usually considered a form of illusionism. For example, realizing you made the monster too tough, and deducting hit points from the health total mid-fight is a form of illusionism (which I have done on a couple of occasions in 40 years of GMing, the fight with two 9HD griffins comes to mind).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Puzzle that unless solved blocks progress isn't a problem if players can just say "F it", leave and either completely abandon quest or return later when someone gets eureka moment and realizes answer. It becomes problem if they must solve it or they're stuck there and can't leave. "Failing" quest isn't that big of a deal.

Depends on how big and central the quest is. Sometimes failing the quest is pretty apocalyptic.

 

[Professor Murder]

I agree here but I think in context of my reply to your post and your post I replied to that your shifting what ‘1 solution means’ when you answer me here.

Original Quote:

Rephrasing your current reply, ‘it’s now about whether there’s a specific path instead of a single solution.’

Yeah sorry. Sematic arguments are well loved online but they can jog on for me. My position is just that, mine. It informs how I try to run games and what frustrates me when I am a player in someone else's. It's that simple.

 

[Campbell]

I guess what is the point of defining what "railroading" is? Is it about setting a standard for when players setting boundaries is socially acceptable? If it's not railroading are players allowed to object anyway? What are the stakes here? Is there genuine concern over if players have enough agency in the scenario? Whether or not it's "railroading" cannot tell you that.

Overall, trying to argue over these universal standards is silly.