If a tree falls in the woods...(Railroading)

[Napftor]

You know how that old saying goes. Could you also say the same when it comes to GM railroading if the players are none the wiser? Sure, blatant railroading like forbiddance to go to town when the GM wants you to go to the dungeon is bad. But how about when that same GM allows the party to go to town and, upon first investigating a particularly strange ring of mushrooms just outside town, suddenly find their characters teleported into the dungeon's first level? No harm, no foul, but is there railroading? It was the PCs choice to investigate the mushroom ring and they are unaware the GM wants them in the dungeon.

Please note that the above scenario has never happened in one of my games and I've only thrown it out as an example.

 

[EricNoah]

If you do that mushroom trick more than once, players will begin to realize they're riding the rails.

 

[Dungeonmaster P]

Sometimes railroading can be your friend as long as the players don´t feel restricted in their actions.
Some players hopes that they are to be granted total freedom and that the DM will provide an detailed world and adventures no mather where they go and what they do. Railroading used wisely is a timesaver.

 

[Desdichado]

I think there's an acceptable level of GM arbitration to get things to go towards what he prepared, but a trick like that is pretty blatant. Like Eric says, more than once and it's too much.

Generally, I think it needs to be more subtle than that.

In general, I think it's important that players also realize that they have a stake in this too. If they're completely ignoring every hook the GM throws at them and stubbornly attempt to do something completely off the wall to fill up the session, they're just as bad as a railroading GM.

 

[Dinkeldog]

All aboard! Next stop: Necropolis!

 

[TheYeti1775]

Nope, unless

No it isn't railroading if used only once.

And Players don't have to be none the wiser.
Case in point there was two huge hooks, that we balantly ignored as Characters. As players we wanted to, but our Characters had other goals at the time. Yet now our Characters have come full circle and are finishing off those hooks, (one down, many more to go).

If you keep up with the Story Hour section you can find under In the Valus (Heros of Marchford) link there. I don't think Funeris has written about the hooks I talk about yet, so look forward to it as an example.

 

[diaglo]

If you do that mushroom trick more than once, players will begin to realize they're riding the rails.

fool me once shame on you.

fool me twice shame on me.

if they keep falling for the same trick... whose fault is that?

 

[BlackMoria]

Railroading is fine as long as it minimal, subtle and not heavy handed. If you are using a published adventure (or even a home brewed adventure for that matter), there is a certain degree of railroading required unless your players are the type that willingly pounce on every 'hook' the DM waves in front of them.

Railroading implies a 'lack of choice or free will'.

Subtle railroading is manipulating player expectations in such a fashion that they make the choices the DM wants to further the campaign. But it still allows players choices. This railroading is 'good'.

'Bad' railroading is when the players have no choices at all. All avenues are shutdown so the players are left with only one choice - the DM's.

So, using your scenario, it is not 'bad' railroading. The players had a choice of their characters continuing to town or investigating the mushroom ring, or even doing something else. So the railroading in this case is subtle and the players are not aware of it, so no foul.

 

[Psion]

I have a contraversial claim:

It's only railroading if players don't have the illusion of free will.

I don't think having events that are out of the players control is railroading... so long as players have reasonable control of aspects of their world that they should.

But AFAIAC, until it comes into play, it's undefined. Shroedinger's plot, if you will. If the players have a choice to go left or right, and I want them to meet a particular monster or character, if the monster does not have a logical reason to be in a particular direction, I feel free to place it in either direction.

One masterful GM I know likened this to the "magician's choice". I.E., where the magician gives you the choice but interperets the consequences himself. So if the magician asks you to pick a card but doesn't tell you what he wants you to do with the card (and decided that based on the trick he is perform), and wows you with the results by giving you the illusion that the card you chose had some special significance, but it was really the magician chosing to discard or keep the card you chose.

 

[fredramsey]

Great definition. This is how I always thought of it.

I have a contraversial claim:

It's only railroading if players don't have the illusion of free will.

I don't think having events that are out of the players control is railroading... so long as players have reasonable control of aspects of their world that they should.

But AFAIAC, until it comes into play, it's undefined. Shroedinger's plot, if you will. If the players have a choice to go left or right, and I want them to meet a particular monster or character, if the monster does not have a logical reason to be in a particular direction, I feel free to place it in either direction.

One masterful GM I know likened this to the "magician's choice". I.E., where the magician gives you the choice but interperets the consequences himself. So if the magician asks you to pick a card but doesn't tell you what he wants you to do with the card (and decided that based on the trick he is perform), and wows you with the results by giving you the illusion that the card you chose had some special significance, but it was really the magician chosing to discard or keep the card you chose.