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

[Reynard]

The only aspect that could be considered railroading is the inclusion of the Deck of Many Things without providing a means to deal with the consequences of the deck draws. Sealing off planar travel is a plot hook not railroading.

I legit do not understand how the inclusion of the Deck is rairoading. No one has to draw.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I legit do not understand how the inclusion of the Deck is rairoading. No one has to draw.

Not sure what is meant by "a means to deal with the consequences of the draw" either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

For sure.

I think at least some portion of GM railroading comes from insecurity: that is, being uncertain about being able to flow with out of the box player thinking. This can really only be mitigated by experience: the more you GM, the more confident you become improvising and following the players wherever they go.

I don't think railroading is limited to only new GMs, but I bet that it is more common among them.

And some of it is simply a question of aptitude. I've noted before you can have GMs who are naturally good at some aspects of the role, and just terrible at others. One of the "others" is on-the-fly improvisation. Some people are just terrible at that sort of thing, but can still put together interesting situations, run good combats, and produce and operate intriguing NPCs. What they're going to do when someone runs off the path is probably not going to be terribly appealing to people who want really open settings, but that doesn't make them bad GMs, just limited in an area some people find crucial and others not-so-much.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In another thread, I identified something I would consider railroading if it happened in any game in which I agreed to play. I.e. if I declared an action for my character, and the GM said my character wouldn't have thought to attempt such an action because my character's Intelligence score is too low.

While I'm not sure I'd do that one in any case, that runs into the problem with a game that has strong baked in elements to show the limitations of low physical attributes, but also has mental attributes.

 

[Scott Christian]

Naw, the only thing that matters in this context is how the player feels as they are engaged with the campaign - in the moment and on reflection. Thats where they’re going to provide feedback, have resentment, etc.

If 10 years later you feel a game was full of railroading, that’s a learning experience.

That's already two of the three I mentioned. What an arbitrary stopping point.

And it still doesn't take away that in the moment, the player might be enjoying themselves, and then afterwards, sit down with another player and begin to have a negative view of it because they now look at it as railroading.

 

[Hriston]

While I'm not sure I'd do that one in any case, that runs into the problem with a game that has strong baked in elements to show the limitations of low physical attributes, but also has mental attributes.

That would be the wrong solution to that problem for anyone I would game with.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That would be the wrong solution to that problem for anyone I would game with.

That may be, but for someone who thinks the stats should be payed attention to in both cases, they're liable to do something.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Late to the thread but my definition is pretty straightforward: railroading is when a player's action declaration would ruin the plot the GM had in mind, and the GM waves their magic wand to keep the plot intact.

Railroad is not the antonym for sandbox. To assume it is suggests that sandbox play is the One True Way. I don't at all feel I'm being "railroaded" when the GM has certain encounters planned and tries to guide us toward those encounters (e.g. the dungeon they prepped.) GMs are human. Prep takes time.

 

[CreamCloud0]

While I'm not sure I'd do that one in any case, that runs into the problem with a game that has strong baked in elements to show the limitations of low physical attributes, but also has mental attributes.

and people are quite accepting of mechanically imposed limitations on physical attributes for a low score or failed check, but the moment you try implement anything of the sort on mental scores or 'what they have to do' it's 'Oh my agency is being destroyed! I can't RP my character exactly how i imagine them! Cruel tyrant GM!' You kick miette like the football!

 

[Jahydin]

Anyway, two questions:
1) Do you specifically think what I did here was "railroading"?
and 2) In general, how do you define "railroading" or being railroaded as a player ina game?

1) Normally, Plane Shift would take them out of the Feywild, no? Not allowing that spell to work in order to force them into your adventure is certainly railroading. As a DM, I get why you did it, but I'd take a little different of an approach. For most groups, simply letting them know that they could leave, but they would be missing out on potential NPC allies, XP, and treasure before they get into the last stage of the campaign would be enough to entice them to stay. If they're not feeling it though, let them skip it and go on to the next section under-leveled!

2) Railroading for me is when you force the party into a situation they don't want to be in via "DM Powers" (rather than sound, in-game logic). In my own games, I make it pretty clear what the overall "win and lose" conditions are for the campaign are to set expectations. How they go about completing/avoiding them is up to them. For instance, if the main objective is to delve to the bottom of Doom Mountain and they decide they're bored with that dungeon, they lose and we start a whole new game.

Caveat here is I run a game in which the story is just in service to that end.