DM Issues: Railroading

[Aberzanzorax]

My sole piece of advice for players who have a problem with their DM:

If you're going to say "we don't like x" that's absolutely fine (and helpful)...but it's not particularly helpful unless you can also follow it with "we'd like to see more of y".

annnnndd....that just became my sig.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I ran a fantastic sandbox city a long time ago. But I was younger; I had more time on my hands. These days, in my mid-30s, married, and continually trying to not make my friends feel like I'm neglecting them (and I fail at that, too), I find that sort of campaign much harder to run. It's not just prep-time, but the time you have available to idly think about it - and I just don't have that any more.

I'd hate to think of what it'd be like if I had kids. I imagine that I'd be running WotC adventures only, exactly as-written.

Hmm, well that is a pretty stark contrast to my lifestyle. 25, "self employed", and single. That does give me a lot of time to just mull over ideas if I feel I want to.

Interesting perspective.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I'll echo Morrus there...but only to a point.


Our group played 1/month, all employed 30+ year olds with careers, some with children...

I made a good effort and turned it into a bad mistake...

Rather than set tone and develop story, I vaulted the story into overdrive/boxed text and skipped past the "paltry" encounters to go straight to boss encounters.


It was a mess.



My personal experience has taught me that with my group it's best to just play the game as is, and even to enjoy the "dull" parts that have meaning. Other groups might vary of course, but I think there's definitely a line between "ok, let's get the heck out of this bar...Joe's been chatting up the waitress for an hour now" and "boss fight!" good job! "boss fight2!" good job!.

I've been guilty of both.


In the end...railroading is not "structure"...it's "too much structure"...and THAT, my friends varies from group to group....


....as does "too much freedom."

 

[Mark CMG]

Add me to those who agree with most of the above advice but also believe that bringing it up privately, one-on-one, with the DM can help keep things less confrontational. If he doesn't adjust to a friendly chat, then bringing it up as a group can always be done later.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Railroading is an interesting concept. DMs need creativity, but the players also have to be cognicent of not derailing the story/campaign. If it makes sense to do what's presented, then do it. It's a war and teh region's resources will be geared twoards that regardless of where you are at.

In other words, if the trip is fun and makes sense, buy a ticket and enjoy the ride. You're not the conductor. Let him drive you where you need to go.

The thing to bear in mind is that if someone feels annoyed enough to complain then it is no longer fun !

This is a game, if the DM is not fun to play with then telling him so is a good thing, hopefully he will listen, and throw the damned conductor under the drivers, tear up the tracks, and actually allow the players some freedom of choice.

I hate railroads - the game stops being fun as soon as the DM decides that options aren't necessary. And it is the number one reason that I have seen for games ending - the players just go and find something more fun to do, like being eaten alive by fire ants.... [Possible Hyperbole.]

The Auld Grump

 

[the Jester]

I hate railroads - the game stops being fun as soon as the DM decides that options aren't necessary.

While this is true for me too, I have discovered that some people actually prefer a game with clear direction and a strong plot, even if it does cut your options down to "stay on the train". And that's okay- it's all about preference of playstyle.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

While this is true for me too, I have discovered that some people actually prefer a game with clear direction and a strong plot, even if it does cut your options down to "stay on the train". And that's okay- it's all about preference of playstyle.

You know, in all my years of running games, I have never heard anyone complain that I gave them too many choices.

Part of it may just be the way I structure games - as an example taking Keep on the Borderlands and adding a timeline for a plot going on in town and out in the woods.

The PCs can ignore that plot, or not even notice it for a while. If the characters don't act then Something Bad Happens but I don't force them to ignore the Caves of Chaos to find out what the Mad Hermit is doing. If the Something Bad Happens then it happens.

I guess I just prefer a sandbox with timelines more than a railroad. I like giving the freedom of choice, even if the choice is to fail.

The Auld Grump, it was especially fun for the guy who thought that he knew The Keep on the Borderlands....

 

[Hussar]

See, this is where definitions start getting tricky. If you have a timeline for Keep on the Borderlands, and the players not engaging in that timeline results in strong, negative consequences for the characters, there's not so much difference with an outright railroad.

Do X or get beaten with the punishment stick, or Just Do X amounts to largely the same thing.

Granted it's all about scale. If ignoring the Mad Hermit means that some NPC's die and this makes for some difficulty for the PC's, then fine and dandy. OTOH, if ignoring the Mad Hermit means he completes his ritual and Cthulu shows up, well, that's a lot closer to a railroad.

And the line between those two points is very blurry.

I'm really coming to the opinion that what people call story or plot based games and what people call sandboxes are nowhere near as far apart as they might appear at first blush.

Anyway, sorry for the digression.

----------

To the OP. There isn't a whole lot to add here. Talk to the DM in an open and honest manner. Tell him that you're feeling hemmed in by the campaign and there are some other elements you'd like to have to oportunity to pursue. And, actually HAVE other elements to pursue.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Do X or get beaten with the punishment stick, or Just Do X amounts to largely the same thing.

Déjà vu.

I'm really coming to the opinion that what people call story or plot based games and what people call sandboxes are nowhere near as far apart as they might appear at first blush.

As someone on the other side of things, tell me about it.

To the OP. There isn't a whole lot to add here. Talk to the DM in an open and honest manner. Tell him that you're feeling hemmed in by the campaign and there are some other elements you'd like to have to oportunity to pursue. And, actually HAVE other elements to pursue.

Good advice.

As always, play what you like

 

[pawsplay]

See, this is where definitions start getting tricky. If you have a timeline for Keep on the Borderlands, and the players not engaging in that timeline results in strong, negative consequences for the characters, there's not so much difference with an outright railroad.

The difference can be night-and-day. In one scenario, the players identify strongly with the situation faced by their PCs. In the other, they recognize they are being asked to accept the DM's power play. Now, there are situations where the two are indistinguishable (convenient ruby-eating titan blocks the way), but only at first glance. Upon inspection, there is a huge difference between a situation which is merely limiting (and limitations add interest) versus one which is oppressive (boring, except insofar as it provokes frustration). It is a curious paradox that a GM creates adventures by subtracting, and can suck the life out of them by adding, but I believe it. The GM is not the author of the story. Period.