Can you railroad a willing player? (Forked from "Is World Building Necessary?")

[FireLance]

Forked from: Forked from "An Epiphany" thread: Is World Building "Necessary"?

Is this a railroad:

"You are starting in Chicago. You WILL go to New Orleans, and you WILL pass through St. Louis on the way. You can take the train, or drive, or fly, or walk for all I care; and you don't even have to go in a straight line, but those cities are where you're going."

Depends. Do the players care about deciding where they go? Is that choice meaningful to them? If not, I don't think it counts as railroading.

So, in your view, is there an objective definition of "railroading" (and if so, what is it?) or is "railroading" entirely subjective and dependent on whether the players mind in the first place?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

For myself I view railroading simply as this, "Are the Players and DM at odds with each other". I believe railroading is not something that simply the DM does, nor is it something that comes about from one particular gamestyle.

It is simply, when either side forces the other to go down a particular story/campaign route that is not agreeable with both sides. I very much follow the idea of Player and DM co-storytelling. So they both must be in on the action. If the path the DM has laid is one the Players wish to take, then no railroading is being done since no one is being forced into a unwanted path.

So I guess I am in the middle, I have a particular view of what railroading is. But it only occurs when there is a issue to be brought up.

 

[Fenes]

Some players want to be railroaded. They explicitely state "You have an NPC that can order my character around, so do that, otherwise my character will just be lazying around and enjoy life".

 

[steenan]

I call what happens during a gaming session railroading if player's choices are restricted in a way that was not known before the game started (taking into account game setting, system and group's social contract).

Thus, no restrictions determined and presented before the game are railroading. Mind control spells and similar powers, antimagic areas, monsters immune to some attacks etc. are not railroading if used moderately (as they are a part of game mechanics), but may be if overused (violating the social contract). Deciding that whichever road the party walks will lead to the dungeon is not railroading if players choose them at random (as there is no real choice that could be restricted), but doing the same when they gathered information about what is down the roads is railroading. Changing the system without players' knowledge, in general, is (or leads to) railroading, but may be not if either system or social contract allows doing this in a given situation (e.g. in most games the GM is free to homebrew places, NPCs and monsters, but should follow some guidelines).

 

[SlyFlourish]

It's a tough call. As a DM, it really helps if I know what the next three battles are going to be, so I railroad individual sessions just so I can get the Dwarven Forge set up and know what encounters I'm going to run. I usually set up choices at the end of a session so I know where it's headed next week.

Decisions need to be something other than choosing one of three arbitrary doors. It's hard to set up meaningful choices with real consequences and still play through a planned adventure.

I think different groups want different things. My group, so far, hasn't complained about railroading but hasn't shied away from real decisions either.

 

[Henrix]

There's nothing wrong with railroading, as long as everybody's having fun.

Railroading can be clunky and boring if not done smoothly, of course. It's one of the easiest tools for a lazy GM, and so sees much abuse.

I frequently railroad my players quite hard, but I don't think they even notice.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

IMO, there is no objective definition of railroading. I certainly know it when I'm subject to it. Sometimes I'm willing to go along with it. Other times it really grates on me. I think the big difference is that I'm willing to play along with the DM picking the direction or even encouraging us to go certain places and follow certain threads as long as the DM will respond fairly if we don't do that. The "partial railroading" if you will as mentioned earlier that lets the DM plan opponents and battles out a couple sessions ahead of time. (It's not my preference as DM - I'm very willing to allow for anything.) That same DM should not prevent the group utterly from just doing something not planned for if it's appropriate.

 

[BlackMoria]

You can't railroad a willing person in my opinion.

Railroading is the deliberate act of limiting or eliminating choices and the players knowing that their choices are being curtailed or that their choices, whatever they are, lead to the same point.

The willing person who is following the plotline or the bread crumbs to whatever lies ahead is not being railroaded, whether or not he had options or not because he is choosing to follow the plotline and not exercising a possibility of doing something else.

Railroading is when the players choose to depart from the established plotline and the DM takes actions for 'force' them back on.

Case in point.

The DM has a dragon encounter he wants to run. The characters can get forewarned of the encounter by asking the right NPCs they encounter.

Outcome 1: The characters find out about the dragon but willing decide to proceed towards the encounter anyhow. The characters are not being railroad as they still have free will and have freely chose to face the dragon.

Outcome 2: The characters don't ask questions and aren't aware of the dragon and proceed unawares to the encounter. The party is not being railroaded. The party not exercising a choice because they are not aware they have one is not railroading. Their choice is to continue, not aware that a dragon awaits, therefore, choices have not been taken away.

Outcome 3: The characters find out about the dragon in the hills ahead and instead, choose to head to the forest in another direction, only to be attacked by the dragon overflying the forest. The party is being railroaded now since their choice was to avoid the dragon encounter and the DM hit them with the encounter anyway. The party exercised a choice but the DM did the dragon encounter anyhow.

Outcome 4: The character find out about the dragon in the hills and head for the forest, only to run into a dragon living the the forest. The DM says it is a different dragon but the party didn't want to mess with any dragons, so it's a railroad. Again, the party exercised a choice but still got the DM's dragon encounter anyhow.

Outcome 5: The party finds out about the dragon in the hills and instead, head for the forest, only to find that the forest is on fire. They decide to back track, only to find that a entire horde of orcs is rampaging through the areas. They make for another location, to find that the weather or other conditions preclude them from going that way. One by one, all options are closed down do that the only option remaining is heading for the hills and the dragon. This is the classical railway. Party cannot exercise any choices because all options are shut down and the only choice is the what the DM wants.

In short, a railway is when the party is aware of something they want to avoid or not deal with at the moment and through lack of choices or manipulation of choice outcomes, all paths lead back to the very thing the party has made a choice to avoid.

 

[Cadfan]

You can't railroad the willing.

You can DM in a clumsy fashion, but you can't railroad.

You also can't railroad the unaware.

 

[jmucchiello]

By my definition of railroad, no. It is only a railroad if a player attempts to derail the train and fails. In other words, the player(s) must object to the railroading in order for it to be a railroad. If the players don't notice or don't mind, it's no longer a railroad.