If you don't have the motivation that leads to "railroading" players by the strictest definition, then you are less likely to do something that looks like "railroading" by any definition.
The motivation that leads to "railroading" is partiality.
Note that the original term for the moderator in the D&D rules was referee. A dungeonmaster who is disinterested not only when one PC faction clashes with another but when PCs take on "the world" has no destination toward which to lay rails.
Why introduce a single overwhelmingly "no brainer" course of action in the first place, if the object is to provide interesting options for players? That is of course a question the particular judge must answer from his or her own heart.
I once thought up a scenario that was essentially really a story. Its dramatic effect depended, though, on the players' emotional and conceptual responses to events. Even if I could have forced them to go through certain outward motions, their inner movement -- the real key -- was something that I could only hope to influence. The climax involved revelation of how they had misunderstood things. My aim was to "push the buttons" of their (presumed) habits of thought so that their own choices, which they (theoretically) had opportunity to inform, would in retrospect clearly have led step by step to that point.
That in the event came off very well. It would not have been a total dud, I think, if the players had not responded as I hoped, but it would not have had the almost literary beauty.
Another time, I ran a thoroughly "on rails" gauntlet of puzzles -- but it was plainly advertised as just that. It got an enthusiastically positive response, partly because once again (and more certainly) I had built in dramatic foreshadowing and revelation with particular timing.
That kind of thing can be very tempting, and certainly there are groups of players who by far prefer to ride such a railroad as a regular thing rather than to have something less like a drama and more like a game.
People who don't like it as a steady diet may nonetheless enjoy such a production as a "one-shot" (for instance at a convention).
On balance, though, I have found the greatest rewards to come from dramatic situations that arise "organically" in play. When I not only don't but can't know in advance what is going to happen, even narrow it down to a handful of options, I know I have an exciting game set up.
A mathematical exercise may suggest a difficulty with planning event-driven scenarios, one that can be part of the temptation to keep "getting players back on track":
- Suppose that at each step (decision point or event) one must move forward.
- Suppose there are only two options (outcomes) at each step.
- Suppose that no points (states of the scenario) overlap.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who count in binary and those who don't.
With 4 steps, there are 2^4 = 16 end points.
With 8 steps, there are 2^8 = 256 end points.
With 16 steps, there are 2^16 = 65,536 end points.
So, with 16 binary choices and no overlap/duplication, there are 65,535 final states alone that are "wasted" if you wrote them up for a single run. The more you devote your effort to preparing very specific scenario-states in advance, the more temptation there is to trim the tree.
This is not such a problem when one sets up an environment after the example of Dungeon and Wilderness maps and keys in old D&D. Provide the materials for a vast number of possible states, introduce players, and away you go!
"Players will not find a game enjoyable which confines them too much."
The definition of "railroading" aside, that is the bottom line. "Too much" is however much the particular players in question find not enjoyable.
The motivation that leads to "railroading" is partiality.
Note that the original term for the moderator in the D&D rules was referee. A dungeonmaster who is disinterested not only when one PC faction clashes with another but when PCs take on "the world" has no destination toward which to lay rails.
Why introduce a single overwhelmingly "no brainer" course of action in the first place, if the object is to provide interesting options for players? That is of course a question the particular judge must answer from his or her own heart.
I once thought up a scenario that was essentially really a story. Its dramatic effect depended, though, on the players' emotional and conceptual responses to events. Even if I could have forced them to go through certain outward motions, their inner movement -- the real key -- was something that I could only hope to influence. The climax involved revelation of how they had misunderstood things. My aim was to "push the buttons" of their (presumed) habits of thought so that their own choices, which they (theoretically) had opportunity to inform, would in retrospect clearly have led step by step to that point.
That in the event came off very well. It would not have been a total dud, I think, if the players had not responded as I hoped, but it would not have had the almost literary beauty.
Another time, I ran a thoroughly "on rails" gauntlet of puzzles -- but it was plainly advertised as just that. It got an enthusiastically positive response, partly because once again (and more certainly) I had built in dramatic foreshadowing and revelation with particular timing.
That kind of thing can be very tempting, and certainly there are groups of players who by far prefer to ride such a railroad as a regular thing rather than to have something less like a drama and more like a game.
People who don't like it as a steady diet may nonetheless enjoy such a production as a "one-shot" (for instance at a convention).
On balance, though, I have found the greatest rewards to come from dramatic situations that arise "organically" in play. When I not only don't but can't know in advance what is going to happen, even narrow it down to a handful of options, I know I have an exciting game set up.
A mathematical exercise may suggest a difficulty with planning event-driven scenarios, one that can be part of the temptation to keep "getting players back on track":
- Suppose that at each step (decision point or event) one must move forward.
- Suppose there are only two options (outcomes) at each step.
- Suppose that no points (states of the scenario) overlap.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who count in binary and those who don't.
With 4 steps, there are 2^4 = 16 end points.
With 8 steps, there are 2^8 = 256 end points.
With 16 steps, there are 2^16 = 65,536 end points.
So, with 16 binary choices and no overlap/duplication, there are 65,535 final states alone that are "wasted" if you wrote them up for a single run. The more you devote your effort to preparing very specific scenario-states in advance, the more temptation there is to trim the tree.
This is not such a problem when one sets up an environment after the example of Dungeon and Wilderness maps and keys in old D&D. Provide the materials for a vast number of possible states, introduce players, and away you go!
"Players will not find a game enjoyable which confines them too much."
The definition of "railroading" aside, that is the bottom line. "Too much" is however much the particular players in question find not enjoyable.
Last edited:
